MCCORD
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 entry of judgment with remand.
The Commissioner of Social Security moved for remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), stating that on remand the agency would assign a diffe…
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 Administrative Law Judge Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) has filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. (Doc. 38.) The Commissioner requests remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the following reasons: “On remand, the agency will assign a different administrative law judge (ALJ), provide Plaintiff with the opportunity for a hearing before the newly assigned ALJ to further evaluate Plaintiff’s claims, and issue a new decision.” (Id. at 1.) The Commissioner also advises that Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to the remand. (Id.) Pursuant to sentence four of section 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.” When a case is remanded under sentence four of section 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) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 299 (1993)). “Immediate entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after post remand 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 sentence-six remand.” Shalala, 509 U.S. at 297. A remand under sentence four of section 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 (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.
2. The Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the motion. (Doc. 38 at 1.)
3. If Plaintiff prevails in this case on remand, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to comply with the November 14, 2012 order (Doc. 1) in Miscellaneous
Case No. 6:12-mc-124-Orl-22. 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on May 19, 2021.
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993)
- Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996)