WEIDMANN-GIFFORD
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 Defendant Commissioner of Social Security moved for a judgment reversing and remanding the plaintiff's social security benefits denial. The plaint…
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 Social Security Act Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. ___________________________________/
ORDER1
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (“Motion”). (Dkt. 18.) In the Motion, Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) requests, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), that this action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for the following reasons: The Commissioner believes that remand would be appropriate in this case to have the Appeals Counsel direct that this case be assigned to a different Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who will offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision.
(Dkt. 18.) Plaintiff has no objection to the requested relief.
Secretary’s final determination that respondent was not entitled to benefits”). “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.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993). A remand under sentence four of § 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 (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED. 2. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiffs application for social security benefits is REVERSED. 3. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Dkt. 18) and herein. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor, terminate all other pending motions, and close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 11, 2022.
JUEKIE $. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993)
- Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1990)
- Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996)