(SS) Degraffenreid 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 JONATHAN ANDREW No. 1:20cv00338 HBK (SS) DEGRAFFENREID, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER REVERSING COMMISSIONER’S v. FINAL DECISION AND REMANDING BASED 14 ON PARTIES’ STIPULATION UNDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 16 Defendant. (Doc. No. 20) 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation to Voluntary Remand pursuant to 20 Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to entry of Judgment filed December 23, 2020. (Doc. No. 21 20). Plaintiff Jonathan Andrew Degraffenreid and the Commissioner of Social Security jointly 22 stipulate to a remand of this case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 23 U.S.C. § 405(g). 24 The United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act only permits remand in 25 conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision. See 26 Melkonyan v. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under the 27 Equal Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). In Melkonyan, 28 1 the Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remands: either a sentence 2 four or a sentence six remand. Id. at 98. A sentence four remand authorizes a court to enter “a 3 judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without resetting 4 the cause for a rehearing.” Id. (other citations omitted). And when a sentence four remand does not include this language, it is unclear whether a sentence four or a sentence four is remand is at 5 issue. Id. (noting because the “affirming, reversing, or modifying” language was absent from the 6 district court order, the parties agreed, and the Supreme Court found, that the district court did not 7 intend a sentence 4 remand). In contrast, in a remand under the sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 8 “[t]he district court does not affirm, modify or reverse the Secretary’s decision; it does not rule in 9 any way as to the correctness of the administrative determination. Rather, the court remands 10 because new evidence has come to light that was not available to the claimant at the time of the 11 administrative proceeding and that evidence might have changed the outcome of the prior 12 proceeding.” Id. (emphasis added). Under a sentence six remand, the Secretary “must return to 13 the district court to ‘file with the court any such additional or modified findings of fact and decision, 14 and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or 15 affirming was based.’” Id. A sentence six remand further requires the petitioner to demonstrate a 16 showing of good cause as to why the evidence was not presented in the prior proceeding, id. at 99, 17 or the parties may stipulate to good cause. 18 Here, the parties’ stipulation and proposed order seeks to have the prior decision of the 19 administrative law judge (“ALJ”) vacated and the case remanded for further administrative 20 proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Doc. No. 20 at 1. The parties further 21 stipulate that the Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ “to re-evaluate the medical source opinions 22 in accordance with 20 CFR § 416.927; reassess the claimants maximum residual functional 23 capacity; and, if warranted by the expanded record, obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the claimants ability to perform other work in the 24 national economy.” Id. 25 Accordingly: 26 1. Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. No. 20), the Commissioner of Social 27 Security’s final decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner of 28 1 Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ Stipulation and this 2 Order under sentence four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 3 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: January 9, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28