(SS) Granados v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ) CIVIL NO. 1:19-cv-01426-HBK (SS) 12 PAUL VINTON GRANADOS, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER VACATING AND DIRECTING 13 ) REMAND BASED ON PARTIES’ vs. ) STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY 14 ) REMAND UNDER SENTENCE FOUR 15 ANDREW SAUL, ) ) OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AND ENTRY OF Commissioner of Social Security, ) JUDGMENT 16 ) Defendant. ) (Doc. No. 30) 17 ) 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Stipulation for Voluntary Remand pursuant to 19 Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to Entry of Judgment” (hereinafter “Joint Stipulation”), filed 20 November 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 30). 21 Plaintiff Paul Vinton Granados, Jr. and Defendant Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social 22 Security, jointly stipulate that this court should remand the instant action for further administrative 23 proceedings under sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (See Doc. No. 30 at 1). The parties further stipulate 24 that the court should direct the Administrative Law Judge to “reevaluate the medical evidence of record, 25 reevaluate his maximum residential functioning capacity under the relevant regulations, and to take further 26 action as appropriate to issue a new decision.” Id. 27 28 1 Although the Social Security Commissioner has agreed to a remand of a matter for further 2 consideration, the United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act permits remand in 3 conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision. See 4 Melkonyan v. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under the Equal 5 6 Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). 7 In Melkonyan, the Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remands: 8 either a sentence 4 or a sentence 6 remand. Id. at 98. A sentence four remand authorizes a court to enter 9 “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without resetting the 10 cause for a rehearing.” Id. at 98 (other citations omitted). And when a sentence 4 remand does not include 11 12 this language, it is unclear whether a sentence 4 or a sentence 6 is remand is at issue. Id. (noting because 13 the “affirming, reversing, or modifying” language was absent from the district court order, the parties 14 agreed, and the Supreme Court found, that the district court did not intend a sentence 4 remand). 15 In a remand under the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he district court does not affirm, 16 modify or reverse the Secretary’s decision; it does not rule in any way as to the correctness of the 17 administrative determination. Rather, the court remands because new evidence has come to light that was 18 19 not available to the claimant at the time of the administrative proceeding and that evidence might have 20 changed the outcome of the prior proceeding.” Id. (emphasis added). Under a sentence six remand, the 21 Secretary “must return to the district court to ‘file with the court any such additional or modified findings 22 of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in 23 modifying or affirming was based.’” Id. A sentence six remand further requires the petitioner to 24 25 demonstrate a showing of good cause as to why the evidence was not presented in the prior proceeding, 26 id. at 99, or the parties may stipulate to good cause. 27 28 2 een ene eee nn eR EN III III IE 1 Here, although the parties’ stipulation and proposed order is silent as to whether they request the 2 court affirm, modify, or reverse the decision, it does not appear that new evidence is contemplated becaus no reference to good cause is made and the parties’ stipulate that the ALJ will “reevaluate medica evidence of record.” (Doc. No. 30 at 1, emphasis supplied). 6 Accordingly: 7 1. Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. No. 30), the Commissioner of Social Security’ 8 decision is reversed and this case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security fo ° further proceedings consistent with this Order under sentence 4, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 2. The Clerk is respectfully requested to enter judgment and close this case. 12 13 IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: _ December 22, 2020 law ZA. foareh Back HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4