Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00038/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Ruby L. Portis
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RUBY L. PORTIS, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

CIVIL ACTION 06-0038-M

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff seeks

judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which denied

a claim for Supplemental Security Income (Docs. 10-11). 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. 17). 

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 

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

will remand this case to an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) with instruction to further

evaluate Plaintiff’s alleged mental and

physical impairments; as appropriate, to

evaluate Plaintiff’s mental impairment under

Listing 12.05C; to evaluate whether Plaintiff

Case 1:06-cv-00038-M Document 17 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 2
2

has any past relevant work; to evaluate

Plaintiff’s abuse of alcohol and determine

whether it is a contributing factor material

in the determination of disability; and, if

warranted, obtain vocational expert

testimony. 

(Doc. 14, p. 1). 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. 14) 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 12th day of July, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00038-M Document 17 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 2