From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
Apr 29, 2008
Case No.: 5:07cv275/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2008)

Opinion

Case No.: 5:07cv275/RS/EMT.

April 29, 2008


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This action was initiated under the Social Security Act to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's claim for benefits (Doc. 1). Now before the court is the Commissioner's Motion to Remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 8). The Commissioner has certified that Plaintiff has no objection to this motion ( see Doc. 8 at 2).

Sentence six remands may be granted on the Commissioner's motion before an answer is filed for good cause, or alternatively, upon a showing that there is new, material evidence and good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 100, 111 S. Ct. 2157, 115 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1991) (explaining the difference between sentence four and sentence six remands under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). In the instant case, the Commissioner has not yet filed an answer and seeks remand to the Appeals Council based on the following: "[T]he Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration received additional evidence that was not associated with the claim file prior to denying review of the ALJ's decision. Based on this evidence, the Appeals Council determined that remand should be requested in order to consider Plaintiff's contentions." (Doc. 8 at 1).

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned believes there is good cause for the requested remand.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Commissioner's motion to remand (Doc. 8) be GRANTED.

2 That this cause be REMANDED to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings in accordance with this Report and Recommendation. As the court retains jurisdiction of this case during the period of remand, judgment should not be entered at this time.

3. That the Commissioner be required to advise the court of the status of these proceedings SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date an order adopting this Report and Recommendation is entered and every forty-five (45) days thereafter.

4. That the file be returned to the magistrate judge upon the Commissioner's filing the first status report and every status report thereafter.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within ten days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control . A copy of objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts , 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).


Summaries of

Walker v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
Apr 29, 2008
Case No.: 5:07cv275/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2008)
Case details for

Walker v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:OPAL V. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division

Date published: Apr 29, 2008

Citations

Case No.: 5:07cv275/RS/EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2008)