WELCH
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this Social Security benefits case, the district court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion to remand for further administrative proceedings. The court reversed the ALJ's decision denying benefits and remanded for rehearing to allow reconsideration of medical evidence, RFC determination, and vocational factors.
Remand is appropriate and is granted. The Commissioner's decision denying benefits is reversed and the case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings before the ALJ.
[1] A court may reverse and remand a social security case for rehearing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. …
[2] A court may grant an unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand in a social security case.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power to enter judgment, reversing and remanding a social security case for rehearing.”
Establishes the court's authority to reverse and remand Social Security cases for further administrative proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff challenged the Commissioner's decision denying Social Security benefits. The ALJ had issued a decision denying benefits, which became the su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vocational Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand. (Doc. 20.) The Commissioner believes that remand is appropriate for the ALJ, to further evaluate the evidence of record; give further consideration to the medical opinion evidence; if necessary, give further consideration to Plaintiff’s maximum residual functional capacity (RFC); if necessary, obtain vocational evidence regarding the effect of Plaintiff’s RFC on the occupational base; and offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a new hearing, take further action to complete the administrative record resolving the above issue, and issue a new decision.
(Id. at 1-2.) Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power to enter judgment, reversing and remanding a social security case for rehearing. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-98 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101- 02 (1991). The Commissioner’s request for remand is appropriate, and given Plaintiff’s consent, it will be granted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Remand (Doc. 20) is
GRANTED.
2. The Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate all deadlines, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the file. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this January 31, 2025.
i a we _— ee F J Lyte 6 a * Wale C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993)
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1991)