Miranda v. Saul, No. 3:2020cv00128 - Document 23 (W.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 14 Motion for Extension of Time to File filed by Andrew Saul, 22 Motion to Remand to Agency filed by Andrew Saul, 1 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jesus Miranda, 4 Complaint filed by Jesus Miranda, 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File filed by Andrew Saul. Signed by Judge Miguel A. Torres. (lc3)

Download PDF

Miranda v. Saul Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION JESUS MIRANDA, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § NO. EP-20-CV-128-MAT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a civil action seeking judicial review of an administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). Plaintiff Jesus Miranda (“Plaintiff”) appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying his application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. (Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 4). On January 13, 2021, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse with Remand and Enter Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum” (“Motion to Remand”). (ECF No. 22). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Appendix C, Rule 1(i) of the Local Court Rules of the Western District of Texas, the parties have consented to proceed with this case before the undersigned, including all proceedings and the entry of final judgment. (ECF Nos. 5 & 17). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand and the Commissioner’s decision will be REVERSED and the action REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. “Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 1 Dockets.Justia.com § 405(g). Pursuant to sentence four of Title 42 United States Code section 405(g), the district court of the United States where the case is properly brought “shall have power 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the Commissioner’s final decision “is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether the [Commissioner] applied the proper legal standard.” Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617, 619 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994)). In his brief, Plaintiff argues two points of error: (1) that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ “disregarded the objective medical diagnosis of claimant’s chronic pain associated with the cervical and lumbar disc disease and the carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome;” and (2) that “[t]he ALJ erred in the Step 5 finding that Plaintiff is able to communicate in English.” (Pl.’s Br., ECF No. 20). The Commissioner did not file a brief addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments, but instead filed the instant Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 22). In the Motion to Remand, the Commissioner moves the Court to reverse the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remand the case “to allow the Commissioner to conduct further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).” Id. at 1. The Motion to Remand also includes a Certificate of Conference, where the Commissioner notes that Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Art Werge, responded by email on January 13, 2021 that “he had no objections to Defendant’s Motion to Remand.” (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff has not filed any further objections or responses in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Remand. 2 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s brief, the administrative record, and the Commissioner’s unopposed Motion to Remand, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted, the decision of the Commissioner should be reversed, and the case should be remanded for further proceedings. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner will be REVERSED and the action REMANDED pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. SIGNED and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2021. ____________________________________ MIGUEL A. TORRES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.