(SS) Padron v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELAINE PADRON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01815-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 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, CASE2 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 (Doc. No. 17) 16 Defendant. ORDER FINDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOOT AND 17 DIRECTING CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL DEADLINES (Doc. No. 16)

22 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand filed March 31, 2022.

23 (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff Elaine Padron and the Commissioner of Social Security agree that this case should be remanded for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew M. Saul as the defendant in this suit.

27 2 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 9).

1 | § 405(g). Ud.).

2 The United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act permits remand in | conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision.

4 | See Melkonyan y. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under | the Equal Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). The | Melkonyan Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remand — || sentence four or sentence six. Jd. at 98. A sentence four remand authorizes a court to enter “a | judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without | resetting the cause for a rehearing.” Jd. at 98 (other citations omitted).

10 The Court grants the Parties’ motion to remand. As agreed by the Parties, upon remand, | the Administrative Law Judge should “give further consideration to the severity of | Plaintiff’s physical medically determinable impairments prior to the established onset date | of disability, give further consideration to prior administrative medical findings, and | Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; if necessary obtain supplemental vocational expert | testimony; take any further action needed to complete the administrative record; give | Plaintiff an opportunity for a hearing; and issues a new decision.” (Doc. No. 17 at 1-2).

17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. The Parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED and this case is 19 REMANDED back to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings 20 consistent with this Order.

21 2. An application for attorney fees may be filed by separate motion.

22 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is MOOT.

23 4. The Clerk hall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, terminate all deadlines, and close 24 this case. | Dated: __April 5, 2022 Wh fareh fackte 27 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE