(SS) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01517-BAK(HBK) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO REMAND UNDER SENTENCE 13 v. FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), REVERSING FINAL DECISION AND REMANDING 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL CASE1 SECURITY, 15 (Doc. No. 14) Defendant. 16 ORDER FINDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOOT 17 (Doc. No. 12) 18 19 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand filed on May 24, 2022. 20 (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff Steven Hernandez and the Commissioner of Social Security agree that 21 this case should be remanded for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 22 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Id. at 1). 23 The United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act permits remand in 24 conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision. 25 See Melkonyan v. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under 26 the Equal Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). The 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1). 28 (Doc. No. 8). 1 | Melkonyan Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remand — 2 || sentence four or sentence six. Jd. 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 4 || resetting the cause for a rehearing.” Jd. (other citations omitted). 5 The Court grants the parties’ motion to remand. As agreed by the parties, upon remand 6 || the “Commissioner will offer the Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing, further develop the 7 | record as necessary; consider all pertinent issues de novo, including, but not limited to, further 8 | evaluating the persuasiveness of the prior administrative medical findings and medical opinions, 9 | including evaluation of both supportability and consistency, and seeking supplemental vocational 10 | expert evidence to determine whether there are significant number of jobs on the national 11 || economy that the claimant can perform.” (Doc. No. 14 at 1-2). 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED, the final decision of 14 | the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings 15 || consistent with this Order. 16 2. A motion for attorneys’ fees may be filed by separate motion. 17 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is MOOT. 18 4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, terminate all deadlines, and close 19 || this case. 20 | Dated: _ May 25, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh fackte 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28