FITCHNER
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.
Fitchner appealed the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits. The district court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion for remand, reversing the benefit denial decision and remanding the case for further proceedings to reevaluate the claimant's impairments and vocational capacity.
The court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion for remand and reversed the benefits denial decision, remanding the case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the Commissioner to reevaluate the claimant's impairments, medical evidence, and vocational functioning.
[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 statutory authority to reverse and remand Social Security decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sought Social Security disability benefits for the period from January 3, 2006 through January 3, 2010 (when he attained age 22). The Com…
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 Remand For Further Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment With Remand. (Doc. 19.) Defendant believes that remand is appropriate to reevaluate the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments during the period at issue; further evaluate the opinion evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; obtain medical expert opinion evidence about the claimant’s functioning during the relevant period if necessary; obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to determine whether the claimant can perform work in the national economy and address the vocational evidence submitted by the claimant with his request for review of the hearing decision; and finally issue a new decision on whether the claimant was disabled from January 3, 2006 through January 3, 2010, the date he attained age 22. 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). Defendant’s request for remand is appropriate, and given Plaintiffs consent, it will be granted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment With Remand (Doc. 19) 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. ENTERED on July 3, 2024.
dig oi sacs
© Kale 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)