MAINER
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 disability benefits case, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment after the Administrative Law Judge issued a fully favorable decision on remand. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and closed the case.
The court granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of judgment, ordering the Clerk of Court to reopen the case, enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the Commissioner, and thereafter close the case.
[1] A district court retains jurisdiction over a Social Security disability benefits case after a sentence-six remand for further proceedings.
[2] Upon completion of administrative proceedings following a sentence-six remand, a district court may enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“With a 'sentence-six remand' the district court retains jurisdiction and enters judgment after the remand proceedings are completed.”
Establishes the court's retained jurisdiction and authority to enter final judgment after remand proceedings conclude.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff initiated an action seeking judicial review of an administrative decision denying her Social Security disability benefits claim. The court p…
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 Sentence Six Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 23). Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff initiated this action seeking judicial review of an administrative decision denying her claim for Social Security disability benefits (see Doc. 1). After filing her Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand Under Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 19), which the Commissioner opposed (Doc. 21). On November 8, 2021, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion and remanded the decision to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 22). In its Order, the Court directed the Clerk to administratively close the case pending resolution of the proceedings on remand. The Court also retained jurisdiction over the matter for further proceedings. See Jackson v. Chater, 99 F. 3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 1996) (“With a ‘sentence-six remand' the district court retains jurisdiction and enters judgment after the remand proceedings are completed."); see also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993) ("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 sentence-six remand.").
Now, Plaintiff represents that she has received a fully favorable decision by an Administrative Law Judge on remand (Doc. 23-1). The ALJ's decision informed Plaintiff of her right to appeal and the time limit to file such an appeal (Id.). Plaintiff has not filed any appeal and the time to do so has passed. As such, the administrative proceedings are complete. Plaintiff has also attached her Notice of Award (Doc. 23-2) and represents that the Commissioner does not oppose her request (Doc. 23 at 2). Because the Court retains jurisdiction, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this case, enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner, and thereafter close the case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 3, 2024.
SEAN P. FLYNN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2