LARRY G. LITTLEPAGE, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge.
This matter is now before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Remand. (Doc. 25).
There are only two avenues for remanding a social security case. Remand can be ordered pursuant to sentence four or to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence four remand depends upon a finding of error, and is itself a final, appealable order. In contrast, a sentence six remand is for the purpose of receipt of new evidence, but does not determine whether the Commissioner’s decision as rendered was correct. A sentence six remand is not an 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).
Here, the parties stipulate that this case should be remanded pursuant to sentence four for a de novo hearing and reassessment of the evidence. In accordance with Schaefer v. Shalala, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993), judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff.
The Court has some concern over the length of time that Mr. Littlepage’s application has been pending. He applied for benefits in June, 2010, and the ALJ issued her decision in September, 2011. (Tr. 25-33). Administrative remedies were not completed until September, 2012, when the Appeals Council denied review. (Tr. 1). While recognizing that the agency has a full docket, the Court urges the Commissioner to expedite this matter to the extent practicable.
For good cause shown, the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Remand (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Larry G. Littlepage’s application for social security benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the ...