Houghlan v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Illinois

Houghlan v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 31, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-01106

StatusUnknown

This text of Houghlan v. Commissioner of Social Security (Houghlan 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

Houghlan v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ill. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

LEANA HOUGHLAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:23-cv-1106-RJD1 ) MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 40). 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 the plaintiff. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993). For good cause shown, the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. The parties agree that, on remand, the ALJ will reevaluate the claimant’s mental residual functional capacity and explain how the assessed work restrictions accommodated the claimant’s mental limitations, including any limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; if necessary, obtain additional vocational expert testimony; take further action to complete the administrative record

1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (Doc. 20). resolving the above issues; and issue a new decision. Plaintiff applied for benefits on April 28, 2020. (Tr. 15). While recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the Court urges the Commissioner to expedite this case on remand. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for social security 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. All pending deadlines

are moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2024

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly 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

LEANA HOUGHLAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:23-cv-1106-RJD1 ) MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 40). 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 the plaintiff. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993). For good cause shown, the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. The parties agree that, on remand, the ALJ will reevaluate the claimant’s mental residual functional capacity and explain how the assessed work restrictions accommodated the claimant’s mental limitations, including any limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; if necessary, obtain additional vocational expert testimony; take further action to complete the administrative record

1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (Doc. 20). resolving the above issues; and issue a new decision. Plaintiff applied for benefits on April 28, 2020. (Tr. 15). While recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the Court urges the Commissioner to expedite this case on remand. The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for social security 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. All pending deadlines

are moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2024

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Houghlan v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houghlan-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ilsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack