OCASIO
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.
The court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion for judgment with remand, reversing the denial of Social Security benefits.
The Commissioner of Social Security requested a reversal and remand of the denial of Plaintiff's Social Security benefits, conceding error. Plaintiff …
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 Action For Judicial Review Of Social Security Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) requests, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), that this action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for the following reasons: Upon remand, the agency will evaluate all medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in the record; reassess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing; if necessary, obtain vocational expert testimony to determine whether Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work or other work; take further action to complete the administrative record; and issue a new decision. (Motion, Dkt. 16.) Plaintiff has no objection to the requested relief. (Id.) Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When a case is remanded under sentence four of § 405(g), the district court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s case is terminated. Jackson v. Chater, 99 F. 3d 1086, 1095 (11th Cir. 1996); Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625 (1990) (finding that a district court’s order remanding under sentence four of § 405(g) “terminated the civil action challenging the
Secretary’s final determination that respondent was not entitled to benefits”). “Immediate entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after postremand agency proceedings have been completed and their results filed with the court) is in fact the principal feature that distinguishes a sentence-four remand from a sentencesix remand.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993).
A remand under sentence four of § 405(g) “is based upon a determination that the Commissioner erred in some respect in reaching the decision to deny benefits.” Jackson, 99 F. 3d at 1095. Here, the Commissioner concedes error by requesting a reversal of the Commissioner’s decision. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED. 2. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security benefits is REVERSED. 3. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Dkt. 16) and herein. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiffs favor, terminate all other pending motions, and close this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 6, 2022.
JULIE §. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993)
- Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1990)
- Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996)