SOUTH
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2021-05-11
No. 2:11-cv-615
District Court, M.D. Florida (2021)

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.

Holding

The court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion, reversing the denial of benefits and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Facts & Procedural History

The Defendant Commissioner of Social Security filed an unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand, seeking to have the case remanded for furth…

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.

Topics
Remand For Rehearing Social Security Act § 205(G) Social Security Disability Benefits Claim

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Remand For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Defendant. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 31). The Commissioner believes remand is appropriate for the following: 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.

(Doc. 31 at 1). Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. 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 also Shalala

or pending motions, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 11, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-98 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1991). Given the parties’ representations and agreement on the matter, the Court grants the Motion, reverses, and remands for further proceedings. See Morgan v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-615-FtM-29SPC, 2012 WL 695840, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2012). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. (2) Defendant’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) If Plaintiff prevails on remand, Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s November 14, 2012, standing order in Miscellaneous Case No. 6:12-mc-124-Orl-22. (4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate all deadlines

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw