(SS) Stonecipher v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LENA ANN STONECIPHER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00609-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION UNDER SENTENCE FOUR 13 v. OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AND REVERSING FINAL DECISION AND REMANDING 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL CASE SECURITY, 15 (Doc. No. 20) Defendant. 16 ORDER TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING MOTIONS AND DEADLINES 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Remand filed September 16, 2021. 21 (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff Lena Ann Stonecipher and the Commissioner of Social Security jointly 22 stipulate to remand this case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 23 U.S.C. § 405(g) and for judgment to be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id.). 24 The United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act permits remand in 25 conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision. 26 See Melkonyan v. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under 27 the Equal Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). The 28 Melkonyan Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remand – 1 | sentence four or sentence six. Jd. at 98. A sentence four remand authorizes a court to enter “a 2 | judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without 3 | resetting the cause for a rehearing.” Jd. at 98 (other citations omitted). 4 Here, the parties’ stipulation and proposed order seeks remand under sentence four and 5 | reversal of the Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc. 20 at 1-2). The parties further stipulate that 6 | the Administrative Law Judge “will obtain supplemental vocational evidence and reassess 7 | whether there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could 8 | perform. In so doing, the ALJ will resolve any apparent conflicts between this evidence and the 9 | Dictionary of Occupational Titles, in accordance with Social Security Ruling 00-4p, also 10 || explaining why the numbers of jobs cited are significant. The ALJ will further develop the record 11 || and issue a new decision on whether Plaintiff was disabled through her date last insured.” (/d.). 12 | The parties do not stipulate to a new hearing but agree “Plaintiff may demonstrate to the ALJ that 13 | the facts of the case warrant another hearing.” (id. at 2). 14 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 15 1. The Court APPROVES the parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. No. 20). 16 2. The Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is REVERSED, judgment shall 17 | be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social 18 | Security for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ Joint Stipulation and this Order under 19 | 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. 20 3. The Clerk is respectfully requested to terminate any pending motions/deadlines 21 | and close this case. 22 | Dated: _ September 20, 2021 Wiha. □□ fares Back 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28