(SS) Lopez 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 LARRY STEVEN LOPEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-00360-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. 12) Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Remand filed September 23, 2021. 18 (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff Larry Steven Lopez and the Commissioner of Social Security jointly 19 stipulate to remand this case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 20 U.S.C. § 405(g) and for judgment to be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id.). 21 The United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act permits remand in 22 conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision. 23 See Melkonyan v. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under 24 the Equal Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). The 25 Melkonyan Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remand – 26 sentence four or sentence six. Id. at 98. A sentence four remand authorizes a court to enter “a 27 judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without 28 resetting the cause for a rehearing.” Id. at 98 (other citations omitted). 1 Here, the parties’ stipulation seeks a remand of the instant case under sentence four, so the 2 | ALJ will consider the medical opinions of record and prior administrative findings; reassess the 3 | claimant’s residual functional capacity; obtain vocational expert to clarify the effect of the 4 | addressed limitations on the claimant’s ability to perform work in the national economy, 5 | resolving any apparent conflicts between this evidence and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 6 | (Doc. No. 12 at 2). The parties further stipulate that Appeals Council will not direct a new 7 | hearing but will defer to the ALJ’s discretion whether a new hearing is necessary. (/d.). 8 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 9 1. The Court APPROVES the parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. No. 12). 10 2. The Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is REVERSED, judgment shall 11 || be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social 12 | Security for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ Joint Stipulation and this Order under 13 | 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. 14 3. The Clerk is respectfully requested to terminate any pending motions/deadlines 15 || and close this case. 16 '7 | Dated: _ September 24, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28