Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00618/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00618-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Walter G. Dement
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WALTER G. DEMENT, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

CIVIL ACTION 05-0618-M 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

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 (Doc. 12). 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 Pursuant to 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. 2). 

Defendant states that 

[u]pon remand by the Court, the Commissioner

will direct an [Administrative Law Judge] to

evaluate Plaintiff’s mental functioning under

Listing 12.05C and incorporate in his

decision an evaluation of functional

Case 1:05-cv-00618-M Document 17 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
2

limitations resulting from Plaintiff’s

borderline intellectual functioning pursuant

to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. 

(Doc. 14, p. 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,

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

(Doc. 11) 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 25th day of May, 2006. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00618-M Document 17 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2