UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
April 6, 2012
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ) REMAND PURSUANT TO
SENTENCE SIX OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
Defendant hereby moves this Court to remand the above-captioned case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g).
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Meaningful review of this matter is not possible because the administrative record is missing page two of Exhibit B14F, a medical source statement addressed in the decision. In addition, the administrative transcript contains typographical errors in the markings identifying the exhibits. Upon receipt of the Court's order, the Appeals Council will remand the case to an Defendant's Motion for Remand administrative law judge to obtain the missing page from Exhibit B14F and to correct the exhibits incorrectly marked as "D."
On March 19, 2012, counsel for the Defendant contacted Plaintiff's counsel, via email, requesting that the parties stipulate to remand. As of the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendant has not received a response to the request for stipulation.
This Court should remand Plaintiff's case for further administrative proceedings to give an administrative law judge an opportunity to obtain the missing page from Exhibit B14F and to correct the exhibits incorrectly marked as "D." This remand is necessary because meaningful review is not, otherwise, possible.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant requests this Court to remand this matter to an administrative law judge to obtain the missing page from Exhibit B14F and to correct the exhibits incorrectly marked as "D."
Respectfully submitted, Date: March 19, 2012 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By s/ Elizabeth Barry ELIZABETH BARRY Special Assistant U. S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant
In consideration of Defendant's motion to remand filed March 19, 2012 (Doc. 15), and in light of Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition to the motion as directed (Doc. 16), the motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.