context: The court rejects the Commissioner's claim that the court should remand this ease pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. SS 405(g). In consideration of the Supreme Court's interpretation of sentence four in Melkonyan, a remand under this sentence would be impermissible. "Remands pursuant to sentence four follow a substantive ruling by a district court, instead of merely returning the case to the agency for disposition." In addition, forcing the district court to issue a substantive ruling on the merits where both parties agree to the remand would impose a "burden on the district courts to make rulings where none are required contrary to generally accepted principles of jurisprudence," or in the alternative, invite the court to silently assist the Commis sioner in making a substantive ruling.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 810 F.Supp. 103, 108
citation_a.parenthetical: remand under sentence four is inappropriate where the Commissioner seeks remand to correct errors of law
citation_a.sentence: Tucunango v. Sullivan, 810 F.Supp. 103, 108 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (remand under sentence four is inappropriate where the Commissioner seeks remand to correct errors of law); see also Seaborn, 822 F.Supp. at 125; Correa v. Sullivan, No. 92 Civ. 0408 (LLS), 1992 WL 367116, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1992) (no remand under sentence four where the court is not conducting an independent review of the record, but rather is only accepting the Commissioner’s assertion in his moving affidavit that he may have erred).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 785 F.Supp. 47, 48-49
citation_b.parenthetical: remand appropriate under sentence four where Commissioner admits legal error
citation_b.sentence: But see Jordan v. Sullivan, 785 F.Supp. 47, 48-49 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (remand appropriate under sentence four where Commissioner admits legal error); Nguyen v. Sec. of HHS, No. CV-F-90-309-DLB, 1992 WL 184220, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Apr. 17, 1992) (same); Spurlock v. Sullivan, 783 F.Supp. 474, 478 (N.D.Cal.1992) (“the stipulated remand, in which the parties agreed that further evidence is necessary to fully determine the merits of plaintiff’s application, raises the inference that the previous evidentiary proceedings were materially deficient”).