Opinion
C/A No.: 1:19-2597-CMC-SVH
06-22-2020
Kristy Michelle Wolff, Plaintiff, v. Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), by his attorneys, Peter M. McCoy, Jr., United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, and Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, has moved this court pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to enter a judgment with an order of reversal with remand of the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. [ECF No. 27]. Plaintiff objects to the Commissioner's motion, arguing it creates uncertainty by failing to provide a reason for remand. [ECF No. 28 at 6].
Plaintiff argues the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") "ma[d]e an error of law by failing to consider all the evidence at hand" prior to issuing an unfavorable decision. [ECF No. 28 at 3]. The Commissioner seemingly agrees, requesting the court order "the Commissioner, through the Appeals Council," to "further evaluate Plaintiff's claim and/or direct an Administrative Law Judge to further evaluate Plaintiff's claim and issue a new decision." [ECF No. 27 at 2]. In requesting the court remand the case for further evaluation of the evidence, the Commissioner impliedly concedes that the final decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence requires reevaluation.
Given the Commissioner's agreement to remand, judicial economy dictates the undersigned not address each of Plaintiff's grounds for remand as reflected in her multiple filings. See ECF Nos. 19, 24, 26, 28. If the Commissioner issues a final decision on remand that is not supported by substantial evidence, Plaintiff may file another action in this court in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and raise any issues thereafter.
Therefore, the undersigned recommends this case be remanded to the Appeals Council to direct the Administrative Law Judge to reevaluate the evidence and to issue a new decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. June 22, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).