Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Illinois

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJune 16, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-01037

StatusUnknown

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

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ill. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSE BASA MARTINEZ, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:19-cv-01037-GCS1 ) COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 23). 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, 101-102 (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. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993). The parties agree that, upon remand, “Plaintiff will have the opportunity for a new hearing, and the ALJ will: (1) further evaluate the medical evidence; (2) reassess Plaintiff’s 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. 8, 16. residual functional capacity; (3) if necessary, obtain evidence from a medical expert; (4) if

necessary, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert; and (5) issue a new decision.” Plaintiff applied for disability benefits in July 2018. (Tr. 15). While recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the Court urges the Commissioner to expedite this case

on remand. For good cause shown, the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner (Doc. 23) 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. Digitally signed DATED: June 16, 2020. . Ate 0 (De by Judge Sison ~=*=~Date: 2020.06.16 11:53:49 -05'00' GILBERT C. SISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSE BASA MARTINEZ, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:19-cv-01037-GCS1 ) COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 23). 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, 101-102 (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. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993). The parties agree that, upon remand, “Plaintiff will have the opportunity for a new hearing, and the ALJ will: (1) further evaluate the medical evidence; (2) reassess Plaintiff’s 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. 8, 16. residual functional capacity; (3) if necessary, obtain evidence from a medical expert; (4) if

necessary, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert; and (5) issue a new decision.” Plaintiff applied for disability benefits in July 2018. (Tr. 15). While recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the Court urges the Commissioner to expedite this case

on remand. For good cause shown, the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand to the Commissioner (Doc. 23) 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. Digitally signed DATED: June 16, 2020. . Ate 0 (De by Judge Sison ~=*=~Date: 2020.06.16 11:53:49 -05'00' GILBERT C. SISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ilsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack