WILLINGHAM
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.
Willingham sought Social Security disability benefits, and the district court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion to reverse the initial denial and remand the case for reconsideration of job availability in the national economy and issuance of a new decision.
Remand is appropriate and granted. The Commissioner's decision denying benefits is reversed, and the case is remanded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the Commissioner to take further action including reconsidering job availability, obtaining supplemental vocational expert evidence if needed, and issuing a new decision.
[1] A court may reverse and remand a social security case for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 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 statutory basis for the court's authority to reverse and remand Social Security decisions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Willingham applied for Social Security disability benefits. The Commissioner denied the benefits. The case proceeded to federal court review,…
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.
Before the Court is the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment With Remand. (Doc. 17.) Defendant believes that remand is appropriate for the Commissioner to take action to complete the administrative record as needed; reconsider whether there are jobs available to the claimant in the national economy; if warranted, obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence; offer the claimant and opportunity for a hearing; and issue a new decision for the period prior to September 21, 2022. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff consents to the relief requested. 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. 17) 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. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this April 29, 2024.
hee a sp
© 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)