Hurlburt v. Saul

D. Nebraska

Hurlburt v. Saul

DecidedMay 24, 2021

Docket8:20-cv-00299

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Hurlburt v. Saul, (D. Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ROBIN BULLOCK, Plaintiff, 8:20CV299 vs. ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security; Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to remand, Filing No. 27. Plaintiff has no objection to this motion. Defendant contends that the Administrative Law Judge failed to include certain treating physician opinions and failed to make appropriate findings in that regard. The defendant wishes to have further administrative proceedings to address all medical source opinions in the record and to reassess plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. This is considered a sentence four remand within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 294-97 (1993); see also Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625 26 (1990) (sentence four provides the appropriate relief when the evidence on the record is insufficient to support the Commissioner’s conclusions and further fact-finding is necessary). Likewise, the Court must also enter judgment ending this case. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 297-98. After reviewing the motion and brief, the court agrees that it will reverse and remand this case. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion to remand and to reverse, Filing No. 27, is granted and Filing No. 22, plaintiff’s motion for an order reversing the commissioner’s decision, is dismissed as moot. A separate judgment will be filed in conjunction with this memorandum and order.

Dated this 24th day of May, 2021. BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District 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 DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ROBIN BULLOCK, Plaintiff, 8:20CV299 vs. ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security; Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to remand, Filing No. 27. Plaintiff has no objection to this motion. Defendant contends that the Administrative Law Judge failed to include certain treating physician opinions and failed to make appropriate findings in that regard. The defendant wishes to have further administrative proceedings to address all medical source opinions in the record and to reassess plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. This is considered a sentence four remand within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 294-97 (1993); see also Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625 26 (1990) (sentence four provides the appropriate relief when the evidence on the record is insufficient to support the Commissioner’s conclusions and further fact-finding is necessary). Likewise, the Court must also enter judgment ending this case. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 297-98. After reviewing the motion and brief, the court agrees that it will reverse and remand this case. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion to remand and to reverse, Filing No. 27, is granted and Filing No. 22, plaintiff’s motion for an order reversing the commissioner’s decision, is dismissed as moot. A separate judgment will be filed in conjunction with this memorandum and order.

Dated this 24th day of May, 2021. BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hurlburt v. Saul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurlburt-v-saul-ned-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack