Thompson v. O'Malley

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

SHANNON T.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-00277

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f. The case is presently before the Court on the Commissioner’s uncontested Motion for Remand. (ECF No. 8). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 9). The Court has fully considered the Motion for Remand and GRANTS the same. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s application as stated herein. Plaintiff, Shannon T. (“Claimant”), completed applications for DIB and SSI in March 2021, alleging a disability onset date of January 14, 2021. (Tr. at 17). After being denied benefits at the administrative level, Claimant timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review of the administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 2). The Commissioner filed a Transcript of the Proceedings and Claimant filed a Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). Prior to filing his brief,

the Commissioner filed an uncontested motion for remand, indicating that the ALJ’s decision denying benefits merited further evaluation. (ECF No. 8). According to the Commissioner, Claimant concurred that further proceedings would be beneficial. (Id.). Under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” Because a sentence four remand essentially “terminates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff,” the court enters a final judgment dismissing the case and removing it from the court’s docket. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 299 (1993) (“Under § 405(g), ‘each final decision of the Secretary [is] reviewable by a separate piece of litigation,” and a sentence-four remand order ‘terminate[s] the civil action’

seeking judicial review of the Secretary's final decision.”) (quoting in Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 892 (1989)). Given that the Commissioner explicitly asks for a sentence four remand, the court REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; GRANTS the Motion for Remand, (ECF No. 8); REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court. A Judgment Order will be entered accordingly. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion to counsel of record. ENTERED: September 27, 2024 ge = ay || ff e ey Josey K. Reeder a United States Magistrate Judge