Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00016/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Clemer Foster
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 The parties agree that on remand this case should be assigned to a different ALJ.

(See Doc. 19, ¶ 6)

2 More specifically, the ALJ is instructed “to provide a rationale as to his finding as

to the relationship between Plaintiff’s daily activities and his credibility and residual functional

capacity in compliance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c), and SSR 96-7p.” (Doc. 19, at

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLEMER FOSTER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 07-0016-WS-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security, 

:

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Commissioner has moved for entry of judgment under sentence

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with remand of this cause for further proceedings.

(Doc. 18) The Commissioner proposes a remand for further administrative

proceedings with specific instructions that the Appeals Council

vacate the April 2006 administrative decision and remand the

case to an administrative law judge1

 with instructions to further

develop the record and issue a new decision. The ALJ will be

directed to re-evaluate Plaintiff’s credibility and re-determine

his maximum residual functional capacity in light of the opinion

evidence of record.2

 The ALJ will fully and accurately explain

Case 1:07-cv-00016-WS-C Document 20 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 4
¶ 3)

3 The ALJ is instructed “to evaluate the evidence of the treating and examining

physicians in light of the exertional and nonexertional requirements for the various levels of

work as spelled out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567, 416.967, and SSR 83-10 and 85-15.” (Doc. 19, at

¶ 4)

4 Finally, should the ALJ again use the grids as a framework for decision making,

he is instructed to address any erosion of the occupational base as provided in SSR 83-12 and

“evaluate this number of jobs in comparison with a table rule, which would direct a conclusion

of disabled, thereby operating as a framework as provided in SSR 83-14.” (Doc. 19, at ¶ 5)

2

the weight given to the medical source opinions, particularly

Drs. Phillips, Fontana, and Citrin, who all opined that Plaintiff

was limited to a range of light work.3

 Since the vocational expert

testified that Plaintiff has no transferable skills, if the ALJ finds

Plaintiff is limited to light work, a finding of disabled is

mandated by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.02.4

(Id. at 1-2 (footnotes added))

In light of the foregoing, and the plain language of sentence four of 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) empowering this 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[,]” the Magistrate Judge recommends that this cause

be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g), see

Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991),

for further proceedings. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g)

makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to

Case 1:07-cv-00016-WS-C Document 20 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 4
5 The defendant’s second motion for an extension of time to file an answer (Doc.

17) is GRANTED. The answer was filed concurrent with the filing of this motion. (Compare

Doc. 16 with Doc. 17)

3

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct.

2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over

this matter.5

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections

to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

DONE this the 6th day of June, 2007.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00016-WS-C Document 20 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 4
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must,

within ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with

the Clerk of this court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual

findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en

banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in

a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),

by filing a ‘Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation’

within ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation,

unless a different time is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to which objection is

made and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to

the district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be

reviewed de novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient to

submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate judge,

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to submit a

brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals;

only the district judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original

records in this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the

cost of the transcript.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00016-WS-C Document 20 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 4