Rumph v. Saul (CONSENT), No. 1:2020cv00223 - Document 17 (M.D. Ala. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) The Commissioner's 16 motion is GRANTED; 2) The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED; 3) This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g). Signed by Honorable Judge Jerusha T. Adams on 11/23/2020. (Certified copy also mailed to SSA Chief Judge and SSA Office of Hearings and Appeals)(bes, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rumph v. Saul (CONSENT) Doc. 17 Case 1:20-cv-00223-JTA Document 17 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION SYRENTHIA RUMPH, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-223-JTA ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the Commissioner of Social Security’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) With Remand of the Cause to the Defendant filed on November 19, 2020. (Doc. No. 16.) In his motion, the Commissioner states remand is appropriate so the agency can “re-assess the opinion evidence; re-evaluate the residual functional capacity, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the claimant’s ability to perform other work in the national economy, take any further action to complete the administrative record, offer the claimant the opportunity for a hearing, and issue a new decision.” (Id.) Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court may remand a case to the Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00223-JTA Document 17 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 2 Commissioner for a rehearing if the court finds “either . . . the decision is not supported by substantial evidence, or . . . the Commissioner or the ALJ incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996). Here, the court finds remand necessary as the Commissioner concedes reconsideration and proper application of governing law and further development of the record is in order. Moreover, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have consented to the full jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Docs. No. 7, 8.) Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Commissioner’s motion (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. 2. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. 3. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A separate final judgment will issue. DONE this 23rd day of November, 2020. /s/ Jerusha T. Adams JERUSHA T. ADAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
