Wells v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court granted a joint motion to reverse the Commissioner's final decision and remand the case to the Agency for reevaluation of the evidence. The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiff and noted the start of the 30-day period for an application for attorneys' fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion“the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.” | unsure The order recites that the issues were tried or heard and a decision rendered, but it does not provide the factual or legal basis for the decision. Because the order is a judgment entry based on a joint motion without reciting the underlying merits or the specific legal error by the ALJ, it is impossible to determine if the decision follows from the law and the record. |
Remand to Agency“Upon remand, the Agency will vacate the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and remand the case to the Agency to reevaluate the evidence and issue a new decision.” | unsure The order directs the Agency to vacate the ALJ's decision and reevaluate the evidence. While this is a standard remedy in Social Security cases, the order does not specify the legal basis for the remand (e.g., lack of substantial evidence, failure to develop the record). Without the underlying reasoning, the correctness of the specific remedy cannot be fully assessed, though it is a standard procedural outcome. |
Entry of Final Judgment for Plaintiff“Final judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding this action to the Agency.” | agree with court The court entered judgment for the plaintiff, which is consistent with the grant of the joint motion and the remand. This is a procedural consequence of the prior rulings. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a judgment entry that grants a joint motion and remands the case. It does not contain the court's reasoning for why the ALJ's decision was reversed or why the evidence needed to be reevaluated. It relies on standard authorities for the fee application timeline but omits the substantive legal analysis required to support the reversal and remand. Therefore, it reaches a defensible procedural result but skips the substantive argument and authorities that would justify the merits decision.
Opinion
Yeu wy United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Shyritta Wells Civil Action No. — 22-cv-01668-KSC Plaintiff, V. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Social Security Defendant.
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Upon remand, the Agency will vacate the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and remand the case to the Agency to reevaluate the evidence and issue a new decision. Final judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding this action to the Agency. The entry of judgment will begin the running of the thirty-day period for which plaintiff, as the prevailing party, may make a timely application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002).
Date: 2/9/23 CLERK OF COURT JOHN MORRILL, Clerk of Court By: s/ L. Sotelo L. Sotelo, Deputy