Kostzuta v. Apfel ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 1 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARILYN KOSTZUTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-6017
(D.C. No. 99-CV-497-M)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner (W.D. Okla.)
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Marilyn Kostzuta appeals from an order of the district court granting the
Commissioner’s motion to remand this case to the agency for further proceedings.
Because the remand to the Commissioner was pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), the order was final and appealable, and we have jurisdiction to
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant
to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
consider this appeal. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein , 496 U.S. 617, 629 (1990). We
now affirm.
We review the district court’s decision on a motion to remand for abuse of
discretion. See Wainwright v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 939 F.2d 680,
682 (9th Cir. 1991).
Kostzuta alleged disability as of August 1995 due to shoulder pain and
frequent seizures. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Kostzuta
could perform a full range of light work. On Kostzuta’s appeal to the district
court, the Commissioner requested a remand for the ALJ to reevaluate the severity
of Kostzuta’s impairments in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a.
The district court granted the motion.
In this appeal, Kostzuta argues that the district court should not have
ordered a remand, but instead should have awarded immediate benefits on the
ground that Kostzuta’s impairments make her disabled at step three of the
five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1520; Clifton v.
Chater , 79 F.3d 1007, 1008-09 (10th Cir. 1996).
The Commissioner’s motion before the district court suggests, and the
record confirms, that the ALJ did not properly evaluate Kostzuta’s condition.
It would be inappropriate for us to usurp the role of the fact finder by
determining whether Kostzuta should be awarded benefits. See Clifton , 79 F.3d
-2-
at 1009 (“[T]his Court should not properly engage in the task of weighing
evidence in cases before the Social Security Administration.”). Further, the ALJ
may determine it is necessary to obtain additional evidence on remand. We
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in granting the
Commissioner’s motion. See Clifton , 79 F.3d at 1009-10 (remanding for
additional proceedings at step three because the ALJ failed to discuss the
evidence and explain why the claimant was not disabled).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Kostzuta’s motion to
dismiss this appeal because the Commissioner did not file a timely answer brief is
DENIED. See 10th Cir. R. 27.2(C) (permitting suspension of briefing schedule
while challenge to appellate jurisdiction is pending).
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-