UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COOKEVILLE DIVISION

AMY GRUBB O’DELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 2:19-cv-00054 ) ANDREW M. SAUL, ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) in which Magistrate Judge Holmes recommends granting Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment (Doc. No. 16) and remanding the final decision of the Commissioner to the Appeals Council. The Government has not filed a timely response in opposition. Nevertheless, the Court has carefully reviewed the thorough Report and Recommendation de novo and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Most notably, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiffs’ timely Appointment Clause challenge entitles her only to remand to the Appeals Council for further consideration, as opposed to remand for an immediate administrative hearing. SSR 19-1p states, in relevant part, that for cases in which a claimant has raised a timely Appointment Clause challenge at the administrative level, the Appeals Council will, upon remand, “conduct a new and independent review of the claims file and either remand the case to an ALJ other than the ALJ who issued the decision under review, or issue its own new decision about the claim covering the period before the date of the ALJ’s decision.”

, at *3 (March 15, 2019) (emphasis added). As Magistrate Judge Holmes has explained, an agency’s policy interpretation, such as SSR 19-1p, “is entitled to substantial deference and will be upheld unless plainly erroneous[.]’” (Doc. No. 20 at 3 (quoting Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

(6th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).) Thus, it is not the role of the Court to “definitively rule that the Appeals Council must remand to an ALJ and may not decide [the claimant’s] case itself.” (Id. (quoting McKay v. Saul, No. SA-CV-01339-ESC,

, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2019).) The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that remand to the Appeals Council in accordance with SSR 19-1p is appropriate. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment is (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED, the final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Appeals Council for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WAVERLY ‘ ee ie JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE