Court Opinion

ID: 9400054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 14:02:26.591055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.926805
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    SAMUEL G.,1

              Plaintiff,
                                                                 Civil Action No.
        v.
                                                                22-cv-2925-MAU
    KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
    Commissioner of Social Security,2

              Defendant.

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
         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

1
        Plaintiff’s name has been partially redacted in accordance with the recommendation of the
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the
United States. See Memorandum from Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chair, Comm. on Ct. Admin.
& Case Mgmt. to Chief Judges of the U.S. Cts. of Appeals, Chief Judges of the U.S. Cts., Clerks
of the U.S. Cts. of Appeals, and Clerks of the U.S. Dist. Cts. (May 1, 2018), available at
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-ap-c-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf (last visited June 6,
2023).
2
        Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the current Defendant has been
substituted in place of her predecessor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
                                                 1
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.

                                                 2
       SO ORDERED.

Date: June 7, 2023       ______________________________
                         MOXILA A. UPADHYAYA
                         United States Magistrate Judge

                     3