PASCUAL
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
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 recommends granting the defendant's unopposed motion for entry of judgment under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case.
Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying benefits. The Commissioner filed an unopposed motion for judgment and remand, …
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Pending before this court is “Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with Remand to the Defendant.” (Doc. 24). Defendant certified that Plaintiff has no objection to this motion. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the case be reversed and remanded.1 Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) permits a district court to remand an application for benefits to the Commissioner by two methods, which are commonly referred to as
“[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In the instant case, the Commissioner states that remand is appropriate to enable an Administrative Law Judge to: further evaluate whether medical improvement occurred by comparing the prior and current medical evidence of record. The ALJ will be instructed to articulate any identified improvement in the symptoms, signs or laboratory findings associated with that impairment(s) when compared with those at the comparison point decision. The ALJ will also include the comparison point decision in the record.
(Doc. 24). Based upon the foregoing, this court concludes that good cause has been shown for remand. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 1. That Defendant’s motion to remand (Doc. 24) be GRANTED and the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be REVERSED. 2. That this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 3. That Defendant be ordered to conduct proceedings in accordance with this Report and Recommendation. 4. That the clerk of the court be directed to enter final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. That the clerk of the court be directed to administratively close this file. At Panama City Beach, Florida, this 14th day of April, 2020. /s/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3- 1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.