Williams v. Apfel

Full title: BEATRICE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Sep 20, 2000

CA 00-0176-CB-C (S.D. Ala. Sep. 20, 2000)

Opinion

CA 00-0176-CB-C

September 20, 2000.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILLIAM E. CASSADY, United States Magistrate Judge

The Commissioner has moved for entry of judgment under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with remand of this cause for further proceedings. (Doc. 23) The Commissioner proposes a remand for further administrative proceedings to allow the Administrative Law Judge to (1) further consider the severity of the medically determinable physical and mental impairments shown in the record; (2) consider the examining source opinions; (3) further consider the claimant's residual functional capacity; (4) further develop the duties and responsibilities of claimant's past relevant work as a basis to reconsider her ability to perform that work; and (5) provide claimant with a supplemental hearing to evaluate all of the foregoing and determine the existence of alternative work for the claimant. ( Id. at 1-2)

During oral argument on September 19, 2000 in the United States Courthouse in Selma, Alabama, plaintiffs counsel, William T. Coplin, Jr., Esquire, consented to the remand in accordance with the contents of the government's motion.

In light of the foregoing, and the plain language of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) empowering this Court "to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing[,]" the Magistrate Judge recommends that this cause be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.