Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01269/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01269-0/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 (SSID)

---

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

James M. Larocca, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-1269-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On December 17, 2013, the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand,

requesting the Court to remand this Social Security appeal for further administrative

proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because the Appeals Council

“has further reviewed Plaintiff’s case and determined that remand for further proceedings is

warranted.” (Doc. 19) All parties have consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 11)

The Commissioner’s remand motion indicates that upon remand, “[t]he Appeals

Council will remand the matter back to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for further

evaluation of the record and a new decision.” (Id. at 1) Specifically, the Appeals Council

will direct the ALJ to: 1) give further consideration to the medical opinions of record,

including the opinions of Dr. Masland, and articulate what weight is given to each; 2)

reevaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity assessment; and 3) reassess steps four and

five with the assistance of a vocational expert, if necessary. (Id. at 1-2) The motion represents

Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. (Id. at 2) The Commissioner also requests the Court

Case 2:13-cv-01269-LOA Document 20 Filed 12/19/13 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 -

to “[s]pecify in its order that the case is being remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42

U.S.C. § 405(g), and direct the clerk to enter a judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.

58, consistent with the decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302 (1993).” (Id.)

There being no objection and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion to Remand, doc. 19,

is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability

insurance benefits is hereby REVERSED and this Social Security appeal is REMANDED,

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings as set

forth herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter a

separate judgment in accordance with Rule 58(a) and (d), Fed.R.Civ.P., consistent with the

decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302 (1993). See Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296

F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A sentence four remand becomes a final judgment, for

purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the EAJA, . . . upon expiration of the

time for appeal. . . A plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand is considered a prevailing

party for purposes of attorneys’ fees. . .This is so even when the case has been remanded for

further administrative action.”) (citations omitted).

Dated this 19th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01269-LOA Document 20 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 2