Chafin v. Colvin, No. 2:2016cv05982 - Document 9 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the defendant's 7 MOTION for Remand; the Court REMANDS Plaintiff's case to the Commissioner pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the uno pposed motion; as the Court retains jurisdiction of the matter, further directing the Clerk to close this case statistically and place it on the Court's inactive docket, subject to reopening statistically upon motion of either party pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/16/2016. (cc: counsel of record) (taq)

Download PDF

Chafin v. Colvin Doc. 9 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA CH ARLESTON D IVISION W ILSON CH AFIN , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 2 :16 -cv-0 59 8 2 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 AN D ORD ER Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Rem and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). (ECF No. 7). On J uly 1, 20 16, Plaintiff Wilson Chafin filed a com plaint herein seeking review of the final decision of the Com m issioner of the Social Security Adm inistration (the “Com m issioner’), denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 2). This action was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate J udge by standing order for subm ission of proposed findings and recom m endations for disposition. (ECF No. 4). On Septem ber 23, 20 16, before filing her answer, the Com m issioner filed the present m otion, seeking rem and on the basis that the ALJ applied incorrect regulations when assessing Plaintiff’s application. (ECF No. 7). The Com m issioner asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel consents to this m otion to rem and, (Id. at 2), and Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the m otion. Both parties have now consented to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate J udge. (ECF No. 8). 1 Dockets.Justia.com The sixth sentence in 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) provides, in pertinent part, that a district court m ay, “on m otion of the Com m issioner of Social Security m ade for good cause shown before the Com m issioner files the Com m issioner’s answer, rem and the case to the Com m issioner of Social Security for further action by the Com m issioner of Social Security.” As noted above, the Com m issioner has not filed an answer to Plaintiff’s com plaint. Moreover, the m otion to rem and states that the Com m issioner will use the rem and period to render a new decision using the proper regulations. (ECF No. 7 at 2). Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Com m issioner’s m otion is GRAN TED . As noted by the Com m issioner, rem and shall be m ade in accordance with sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). A sentence six rem and “does not rule in any way as to the correctness of the adm inistrative determ ination.” Melkony an v. Sullivan, 50 1 U.S. 89, 98 (1991). Accordingly, when a district court orders such a rem and, “there is no final judgm ent until [the Social Security Adm inistration (“SSA”)] returns to the district court to file SSA’s ‘additional or m odified findings of fact and decision,’ 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g), and the district court enters a judgm ent.” Krishnan v. Barnhart, 328 F. 3d 685, 691 (D.C. Cir. 20 0 3) (citing Melkony an, 50 1 U.S. at 98). “Depending on whether the SSA issues a favorable decision, the claim ant m ay request that the court review the decision.” Cum m iskey v. Com m ’r, Social Sec. Adm in., No. CIV. PJ M 11-956, 20 12 WL 1431486, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 24, 20 12) (citing McPeak v. Barnhart, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 742, 745 n. 2. (S.D. W. VA. 20 0 5)). Thus, the appropriate disposition is that the district court “retains jurisdiction over the case but closes it and regards it inactive.” McPeak, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 745 n. 2. Accordingly, the Court REMAN D S Plaintiff’s case to the Com m issioner pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the 2 unopposed m otion. As the Court retains jurisdiction of the m atter, the Court further D IRECTS the Clerk to close this case statistically and place it on the Court’s inactive docket, subject to reopening statistically upon m otion of either party pending the outcom e of the adm inistrative proceedings. IT IS SO ORD ERED . The Clerk is instructed to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record. EN TERED : December 16, 20 16 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.