Opinion
Civil Action 22-cv-2925-MAU
06-07-2023
SAMUEL G.,[1] Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,[2] Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MOXILA A. UPADHYAYA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Samuel G. (“Plaintiff”) seeks reversal of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kilolo Kijakazi (“Commissioner”), in which an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income. See ECF No. 1. Upon written consent of the parties, this case was referred to the undersigned for all purposes. See ECF No. 14; Mar. 14, 2023 Min. Order.
On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff moved for judgment of reversal. See ECF No. 17. On May 19, 2023, the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking to remand this matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. See ECF No. 19. Plaintiff does not oppose Commissioner's Motion. Id. Upon remand, the parties agree that the ALJ will (1) hold another hearing; and (2) issue a new decision. Id.
Under the fourth sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a hearing.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 n.1 (1993); see also Butler v. Saul, No. 20-1919 (RMM), 2021 WL 2366436 (D.D.C. June 9, 2021) (remanding case to the Social Security Administration upon an unopposed motion by the Commissioner). A “substantive ruling on the correctness of [the Commissioner's] decision” is a “necessary prerequisite to a sentence-four remand.” Krishnan v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 685, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1991)).
By filing its Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand in response to Plaintiff's Motion, the Commissioner has effectively conceded Plaintiff's arguments that the ALJ's decision was incorrect. See e.g., Branham v. Kijakazi, Case No. 21-cv-2014-RMM, 2022 WL 2528059 (D.D.C. July 7, 2022) (treating the Commissioner's motion for remand in response to a motion for reversal as a concession of Plaintiff's substantive arguments). Accordingly, having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant case law and statutory provisions, and the record, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Further, given this Order granting the Commissioner's Motion, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment of Reversal.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.