IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLOTTE D. BLACK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL NO. 19-cv-031-DGW1
)
COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand for Further
Proceedings. (Doc. 25).
The parties ask that this case be remanded for further proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence four remand (as
opposed to a sentence six remand) depends upon a finding of error, and is itself a
final, appealable order. See, Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991);
Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corporation Comprehensive Disability Protection Plan,
195 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon a sentence four remand, judgment
should be entered in favor of plaintiff. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-
303 (1993).
The parties agree that, upon remand, “the ALJ will re-evaluate the
claimant’s RFC, with citation to the medical evidence that supports each
1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon consent of the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). See, Docs. 10 & 17.
limitation assessed; re-evaluate the record medical opinions; and obtain
additional vocational evidence if warranted.”
Plaintiff applied for disability benefits in November 2015. (Tr. 14). While
recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the Court urges the Commissioner
to expedite this case on remand.
For good cause shown, the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand for Further
Proceedings (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s
application for social security disability benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED
to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2019.
DONALD G. WILKERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.