Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00630/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00630-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Johnny J. Jones
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

Effective February 1, 2007, Michael J. Astrue was confirmed by

the Senate to serve as the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant

to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael J.

Astrue should be substituted, therefore, for Commissioner Jo Anne B.

Barnhart as the Defendant in this suit. No further action need be

taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section

205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY J. JONES, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

CIVIL ACTION 06-0630-M 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,1 : 

Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security

ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income (Docs. 1, 11). The parties filed

written consent and this action has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order

the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and

Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 16). 

Defendant has filed a Motion and Memorandum for Entry of

Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of

the Cause to the Defendant (Doc. 14). Defendant has stated that

Plaintiff’s attorney has no objection to the motion (Doc. 14, p.

Case 1:06-cv-00630-M Document 17 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 3
2

2). 

Defendant states that 

[o]n remand by the Court, the Appeals Council

will remand this case to an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ), who will be directed to

recontact Dr. Scantlebury, Plaintiff’s

treating physician, and request a properly

completed residual functional capacity

assessment, and fully and accurately address

Dr. Scantlebury’s opinions regarding

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and

the functional limitations imposed by his

impairments.

In addition, Defendant notes that

Plaintiff was awarded benefits on subsequent

applications filed on December 14, 2005, with

an amended onset of disability date of

December 20, 2005. The favorable decision

entered January 26, 2007, will be affirmed,

and the remand in the case before the Court

will address only the time period prior to

December 20, 2005. 

(Doc. 14, pp. 1-2). This is a tacit admission that Plaintiff's

application was not appropriately considered and that this action

should be reversed. Without reviewing the substantive evidence

of record, this Court accepts Defendant's acknowledgment of

error.

It appears to the Court that the decision of the Secretary

should be reversed and remanded. Such remand comes under

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan,

501 U.S. 89 (1991). For further procedures not inconsistent with

this report, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

Therefore, it is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff,

Case 1:06-cv-00630-M Document 17 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 3
3

that Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED

(Doc. 15) and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the

Social Security Administration for further administrative

proceedings not inconsistent with the orders of this Court. 

Judgment will be entered by separate order.

DONE this 1st day of June, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00630-M Document 17 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 3