Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00054/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Ruth D. Philon
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

RUTH D. PHILON, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

CIVIL ACTION 07-0054-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,

15). 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. 18). 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00054-M Document 19 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendant (Doc. 16). Defendant has stated that Plaintiff’s attorney has no

objection to the motion (Doc. 16, p. 2). 

Defendant states that 

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

remand this case to an Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) for rehearing. The ALJ will be directed to

properly evaluate the residual functional capacity

assessment of Dr. Fontana. In addition,

supplemental vocational expert testimony will be

received, based on a hypothetical question which

comprehensively describes Plaintiff’s credible

functional impairments, and which accurately

assesses the requirements of Plaintiff’s past relevant

work.

(Doc. 16, 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, that

Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED (Doc. 16)

and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Social Security

Case 1:07-cv-00054-M Document 19 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Administration for further administrative proceedings not inconsistent with

the orders of this Court. Judgment will be entered by separate order.

DONE this 30th day of July, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00054-M Document 19 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3