DeLuca v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Illinois

DeLuca v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedOctober 14, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-01242

StatusUnknown

This text of DeLuca v. Commissioner of Social Security (DeLuca v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeLuca v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ill. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL DELUCA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:20-CV-1242-MAB ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 26).1 The parties ask that this case be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence four remand (as opposed to a sentence six remand) depends upon a finding of error, and is itself a final, appealable order. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991); Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corporation Comprehensive Disability Protection Plan, 195 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon a sentence four remand, judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993).

1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c) (see Doc. 11). The parties agree that, upon receipt of the Court’s order, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and remand the

matter to the ALJ for a new hearing and new decision. The parties agree that, upon remand, the ALJ will:

evaluate the claimant’s RFC, with citation to the medical evidence that supports each limitation assessed and with consideration for all impairments; evaluate the claimant’s subjective statements under SSR 16- 3p; obtain additional vocational evidence as warranted; and issue a new decision.

(Doc. 26). For good cause shown, the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for social security disability benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 14, 2021 s/ Mark A. Beatty MARK A. BEATTY United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL DELUCA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:20-CV-1242-MAB ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 26).1 The parties ask that this case be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence four remand (as opposed to a sentence six remand) depends upon a finding of error, and is itself a final, appealable order. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991); Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corporation Comprehensive Disability Protection Plan, 195 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon a sentence four remand, judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993).

1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c) (see Doc. 11). The parties agree that, upon receipt of the Court’s order, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and remand the

matter to the ALJ for a new hearing and new decision. The parties agree that, upon remand, the ALJ will:

evaluate the claimant’s RFC, with citation to the medical evidence that supports each limitation assessed and with consideration for all impairments; evaluate the claimant’s subjective statements under SSR 16- 3p; obtain additional vocational evidence as warranted; and issue a new decision.

(Doc. 26). For good cause shown, the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for social security disability benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 14, 2021 s/ Mark A. Beatty MARK A. BEATTY United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DeLuca v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deluca-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ilsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack