Tassen v. Berryhill, No. 3:2017cv02773 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Judgment on thePleadings, to the extent that it requests reversal and remand; grantingDefendant's 12 Motion to Remand; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding thi s matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and dismissing this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 10/17/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tassen v. Berryhill Doc. 14 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION REGIN A D . TASSEN , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 3 :17-cv-0 2 773 N AN CY A. BERRYH ILL, 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 applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplem ental security incom e (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 1-433, 1381-1383f. The case is presently before the court on the plaintiff’s m otion for judgm ent on the pleadings, seeking reversal and remand of the Com m issioner’s decision, and the defendant’s m otion to rem and. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate J udge. (ECF Nos. 13). 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. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff, Regina D. Tassen (“Claim ant”), com pleted applications for DIB and SSI in February 20 14, alleging a disability onset date of J une 1, 20 13, (Tr. at 18), due to chronic obstructive pulm onary disease, diabetes, glaucom a, depression, and high blood pressure. (Tr. at 111). The Social Security Adm inistration (“SSA”) denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 18). Claim ant filed a request for a hearing, which was held on October 18, 20 16 before the Honorable Robert B. Bowling, Adm inistrative Law J udge (“ALJ ”). (Id.). By written decision dated Novem ber 15, 20 16, the ALJ determ ined that Claim ant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 18-28). The ALJ ’s decision becam e the final decision of the Com m issioner on March 31, 20 17, when the Appeals Council denied Claim ant’s request for review. (Tr. at 7-10 ). On May 5, 20 17, 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. 2). The Com m issioner filed an Answer and a Transcript of the Proceedings on August 18, 20 17. (ECF Nos. 9, 10 ). Thereafter, Claim ant filed a brief in support of her request for a reversal and rem and of the Com m issioner’s decision. (ECF No. 11). Claim ant asserted that reversal and rem and were appropriate, because the ALJ had com m itted three errors, which prevented the Com m issioner’s final decision from being supported by substantial evidence. In particular, Claim ant contended that (1) the ALJ im properly rejected the opinion of a consulting psychologist; (2) the ALJ erred by disregarding a vocational expert’s testim ony regarding Claim ant’s inability to work; and (3) the ALJ ’s RFC finding was incorrect, which resulted in Claim ant being denied benefits that should have been awarded to her under the Medical Vocational Guidelines. (Id.). In addition, Claim ant argued that a subsequent award of benefits constituted new and m aterial evidence that justified reversal and rem and. (Id.). On October 16, 20 17, the Com m issioner filed a 2 m otion for rem and, acknowledging that the ALJ ’s decision denying benefits m erited further consideration. (ECF No. 13). 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 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 essentially “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 (1993) (“Under § 40 5(g), ‘each final decision of the Secretary [is] reviewable by a separate piece of litigation,” and a sentence-four remand order ‘term inate[s] the civil action’ seeking judicial review of the Secretary's final decision.”) (quoting in Sullivan v. 3 Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 892 (1989)). Given that Claim ant m oved this court to reverse and rem and the decision of the Com m issioner, then filed a brief in support of that position, and the Com m issioner ultim ately agreed to a rem and without contesting any of 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 Plaintiff’s m otion for judgm ent on the pleadings, to the extent that it requests reversal and rem and, (ECF No. 11); GRAN TS Defendant’s m otion to rem and, (ECF No. 12); 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 Court is directed to transm it copies of this Mem orandum Opinion to counsel of record. EN TERED : October 17, 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.
