Grey v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION FRANCES GREY, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:21-cv-596-CEH-TGW COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand [Doc. 18], filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security on September 28, 2021. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Defendant requests that the Court reverse and remand the action “to offer the claimant the opportunity for a new hearing, obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence and address and resolve any potential conflicts pursuant to Social Security Ruling 00- 4p; and issue a new decision.” Id. at pp. 1-2. Having considered the motion and being fully advised in the premises, the Court will GRANT the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand.

DISCUSSION An individual may obtain review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party by filing a complaint in the district court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659, 672 (11th Cir. 1990). According to the fourth sentence of § 405(g), “[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.” Id. “[A] judgment of the district court that reverses the decision of the Commissioner and orders a remand to the [Social Security Administration] is final and appealable under § 1291 when entered under the fourth sentence of § 405(g).” Crawford & Co. v. Apfel, 235 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 269 (1998)).

The Complaint alleges that the Commissioner’s decision “that Plaintiff is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence” as “[t]he evidence in the record establishes that Plaintiff suffers from impairments of such severity and duration so as to constitute a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” [Doc. 1 at pp. 2-3]. Plaintiff further requests that “the decision of Defendant be reviewed and set aside” and “that [the] claim for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits be allowed.” Id. at p. 3. The Commissioner seeks a reversal and remand “to offer the claimant the opportunity for a new hearing, obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence and address and resolve any potential conflicts pursuant to Social Security Ruling 00-4p; and issue a new decision.” [Doc.

18 at p. 2]. Plaintiff does not oppose the relief. Id. at p. 1. The Court therefore finds that a reversal of the decision and a remand for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is appropriate.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand [Doc. 18] is GRANTED.

2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate any deadlines and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 7, 2021.

Cha. foe z AJandea Mo Pula st yell □ Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any