Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00908/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00908-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

PEGGY M. BLEICH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-cv-908-WC 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

 Pending before the court is the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion 

for Entry of Judgment under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand to the 

Defendant. (Doc. 14). The Commissioner states remand is necessary to permit further 

consideration of Plaintiff’s claim of disability. The Commissioner further states that, 

upon this court’s remand, the Agency will instruct the ALJ to “1) further evaluate the 

opinion of Dr. Al Vester; 2) further evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; 3) 

further evaluate the credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and 4) obtain 

supplemental testimony from a vocational expert.” Id. at 1. 

 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 

Commissioner for a rehearing if the court finds “either . . . the decision is not supported 

Case 3:14-cv-00908-WC Document 19 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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). 

 In this case, the court finds reversal and remand necessary as Defendant concedes 

reconsideration and proper application of governing law and further development of the 

record is in order. Plaintiff filed no objection or response to the Motion for remand 

within the time set by the court for filing any objection or response. 

 Accordingly, it is 

 ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion (Doc. 14) is GRANTED; for the 

reasons set forth in the Motion, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and 

REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

A separate judgment will issue.

 Done this 19th day of February, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-00908-WC Document 19 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2