East v. Colvin, No. 1:2016cv07798 - Document 13 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: The Court GRANTS Claimant's 10 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, to the extent that it requests reversal and remand under sentence four; GRANTS Defendant's 11 MOTION to Remand; REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and DISMISSES this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 1/4/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
East v. Colvin Doc. 13 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA BLU EFIELD D IVISION CH RISTOPH ER LEE EAST, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 1:16 -cv-0 779 8 CAROLYN W . COLVIN , Actin g Co m m is s io n e r o f th e So cial Se cu rity Ad m in is tratio n , D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Com m issioner of the Social Security Adm inistration (hereinafter the “Com m issioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 1-433. The case is presently before the court on the plaintiff’s m otion for judgm ent on the pleadings, seeking, inter alia, reversal and rem and of the Com m issioner’s decision, and the defendant’s m otion to rem and. (ECF Nos. 10 , 11). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate J udge. (ECF No. 12). The court has fully considered the representations and argum ents of counsel and GRAN TS both m otions. Accordingly, the court FIN D S that the decision of the Com m issioner should be REVERSED and REMAN D ED , pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g), for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s application as stated herein. Plaintiff, Christopher Lee East (“Claim ant”), com pleted an application for DIB on J anuary 10 , 20 13, alleging a disability onset date of Decem ber 19, 20 12, (Tr. at 178), due 1 Dockets.Justia.com to “PTSD, Back Injury, Leg Injury (both), [and] Hearing Loss.” (Tr. at 20 3). The Social Security Adm inistration (“SSA”) denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 15). Claim ant filed a request for a hearing, which was held on October 27, 20 14 before the Honorable Anne V. Sprague, Adm inistrative Law J udge (“ALJ ”). (Tr. at 38-76). By written decision dated Decem ber 3, 20 14, the ALJ determ ined that Claim ant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 16-28). The ALJ ’s decision becam e the final decision of the Com m issioner on J une 23, 20 16, when the Appeals Council denied Claim ant’s request for review. (Tr. at 1-5). On August 17, 20 16, Claim ant filed the present civil action seeking judicial review of the adm inistrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). (ECF No. 1). The Com m issioner filed an Answer on October 17, 20 16, along with a Transcript of the Proceedings. (ECF Nos. 6, 7). Thereafter, Claim ant filed a brief in support of judgm ent on the pleadings, requesting rem and of the Com m issioner’s decision under both sentence four and sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). (ECF No. 10 ). Claim ant asserted, in relevant part, that reversal and rem and were appropriate, because the ALJ had failed to provide a sufficient explanation of her findings at steps two and three of the sequential disability determ ination process, and because Claim ant had new and m aterial evidence to subm it. (Id. at 5-10 ). On Decem ber 27, 20 16, after being given an extension for the filing of her brief in opposition to reversal and rem and, the Com m issioner filed a m otion for rem and under sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g), acknowledging that the ALJ ’s decision denying benefits m erited further evaluation. (ECF No. 11). The Com m issioner represented that Claim ant agreed to a sentence four rem and. Title 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) authorizes the district court to rem and the decision of the Com m issioner of Social Security for further consideration at different stages of the 2 judicial proceedings. When the Com m issioner requests rem and prior to filing an answer to the plaintiff’s com plaint, the presiding court m ay grant the request under sentence six of § 40 5(g), upon a showing of good cause. In addition, a court may rem and the m atter “at any tim e” under sentence six to allow “additional evidence to be taken before the Com m issioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is m aterial and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). When a court rem ands the Com m issioner’s decision under sentence six, the court retains jurisdiction over the m atter, but “closes it and regards it as inactive” until additional or m odified findings are supplied to the court. See McPeak v. Barnhart, 388 F.Supp.2d 742, 745 n.2. (S.D.W.Va. 20 0 5). In contrast, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g), “[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgm ent affirm ing, m odifying, or reversing the decision of the Com m issioner of Social Security, with or without rem anding the cause for a rehearing.” Because a sentence four rem and effectively “term inates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff,” the court enters a final judgm ent dism issing the case and rem oving it from the court’s docket. Shalala v. Schaefer, 50 9 U.S. 292, 299, 113 S. Ct. 2625, 2630 -31, 125 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1993) (“Under § 40 5(g), ‘each final decision of the Secretary [is] reviewable by a separate piece of litigation,” and a sentencefour rem and order ‘term inate[s] the civil action’ seeking judicial review of the Secretary's final decision.”) (quoting in Sulliv an v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 892, 10 9 S.Ct. 2248, 2258, 10 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1989)). Given that Claim ant m oved this court to reverse and rem and the decision of the Com m issioner, and the Com m issioner ultim ately agreed to a rem and without contesting 3 the argum ents raised by Claim ant, the court concludes that Claim ant is entitled to reversal and rem and of the Com m issioner’s decision on the grounds asserted in her brief. Moreover, the court notes that in her m otion to rem and, the Com m issioner asks for a sentence four rem and; thereby, im plicitly conceding term ination of the judicial proceeding in Claim ant’s favor. Accordingly, the court hereby GRAN TS Claim ant’s m otion for judgm ent on the pleadings, to the extent that it requests reversal and rem and under sentence four, (ECF No. 10 ); GRAN TS Defendant’s m otion to rem and, (ECF No. 11); REVERSES the final decision of the Com m issioner; REMAN D S this m atter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) for further adm inistrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and D ISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court. A J udgm ent Order will be entered accordingly. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transm it copies of this Mem orandum Opinion to counsel of record. EN TERED : J anuary 4, 20 17 4
]]>
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.
