CLARK v. ASTRUE et al, No. 1:2009cv01568 - Document 9 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on October 5, 2009. (lcckk2 )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JACQUELINE M. CLARK, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 09-1568 (CKK) v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (October 5, 2009) Plaintiff, Jacqueline M. Clark, filed the above-captioned matter on August 19, 2009, seeking judicial review of a final decision by the Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Thereafter, on October 1, 2009, Defendant filed a consent motion requesting that the Court enter judgment reversing the Defendant s final decision and remanding the case to the Defendant for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Docket No. [7]. Defendant represents that Plaintiff s counsel has consented to the motion. Id. at 1. Upon consideration of the Defendant s motion, the positions of the parties as stated therein, the relevant case law and statutory provisions, and the record of this case as a whole, the Court shall GRANT Defendant s [7] Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Accordingly, the Defendant s final decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Defendant to: (1) remove from the certified transcript the medical reports from several doctors and social workers that belong to another person; (2) hold a new hearing; and (3) issue a new decision. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: October 5, 2009 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge -2-
]]>
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.
