Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00799/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00799-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sandra Y. McCoy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JoAnne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-00799-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to reverse and remand the final

decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) that denied

Plaintiff’s initial request for benefits on December 12, 2003. Doc. #21. Defendant states that

a remand is necessary because after Plaintiff filed this action on April 23, 2004, she reapplied

for disability insurance benefits. Id. One day after the ALJ issued its decision denying

Plaintiff benefits, she was found disabled by SSA as of December 13, 2003. Id. Defendant

now requests a voluntary remand of the case, so that the Commissioner can reconcile the

subsequent allowance with the ALJ’s denial. Id. 

Plaintiff does not object to remand of her first case for further review, but expresses

concern that an “undirected remand order [by this Court]...to reconcile the two conflicting

decisions may produce a reversal not of the first unfavorable determination, but of the second

favorable decision through which Plaintiff currently receives benefits.” Doc. #22. Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00799-DGC Document 24 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

request that upon remand, the Court “prohibit any reopening or reversal of the SSA’s

approval of Plaintiff’s second claim.” Id. The Court cannot do so because a district court’s

role in reviewing the Commissioner’s decision is a limited one, and only has the power to

enter judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision in the case

before it. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Because the facts of the second claim are not currently

before this Court, we can neither prohibit nor authorize the “reopening” of the Plaintiff’s

second claim. 

The Court will grant Defendant’s request to remand, however, because it is

unopposed. On remand, the Commissioner should conduct such supplemental hearings as

is necessary to complete the record and issue a new decision on its previous denial. The

scope of the Court’s remand is limited only to reconsidering the facts as it pertains to the

SSA’s denial of Plaintiff’s first disability claim. The Appeals Council should remand this

case to an ALJ with the instruction to reconcile the subsequent allowance of benefits with

the previous denial. Specifically, the ALJ should consider Plaintiff’s alleged mental

impairments in light of the subsequent allowance. If necessary, the ALJ should further

develop any record with additional treating records, possibly obtain a supplemental mental

status examination, and/or the assistance of a medical expert to determine the nature of

Plaintiff’s mental impairments and resolve any inconsistencies in the record. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reverse and Remand is (Doc. #21)

granted.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00799-DGC Document 24 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2