Wells v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion for voluntary remand to the Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court granted the motion, ordered the agency to vacate the ALJ's decision and reevaluate the evidence, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand to Agency Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Entry of Judgment“Having reviewed the Complaint and the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly granted the joint motion because the parties agreed to a voluntary remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows the court to remand the case to the agency for further action when the parties consent. The order accurately reflects the procedural mechanism for such a remand and the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff. |
Directing the Clerk to enter a final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding to the Agency“The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a 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 Entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon a voluntary remand is the standard procedural outcome in Social Security cases where the agency agrees to reevaluate the claim. The order correctly identifies the plaintiff as the prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the basis for the remand (joint motion under Sentence Four), grants the motion, and directs the appropriate entry of judgment. It also correctly cites the relevant statute and case law regarding the timing of attorney's fee applications. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHYRITTA W., Case No.: 22cv1668 12 Plaintiff, Order Granting Joint Motion For 13 v. Voluntary Remand to Agency Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, § 405(g) and Entry of Judgment [Doc. 15 Defendant. No. 15] 16 17 Plaintiff Shyritta W. filed this action challenging the final decision of the 18 Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Doc. No. 1. This 19 Court directed the parties to explore informal resolution of the matter through the meet- 20 and-confer process. See Doc. No. 13. On February 9, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion 21 for Voluntary Remand to [the] Agency Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 22 and Entry of Judgment. Doc No. 15. 23 Having reviewed the Complaint and the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court GRANTS 24 the Joint Motion. Upon remand, the Agency will vacate the decision of the Administrative 25 Law Judge (“ALJ”) and remand the case to the Agency to reevaluate the evidence and issue 26 a new decision. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment in favor of 27 plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and 28 remanding this action to the Agency. The entry of judgment will begin the running of the 1 || thirty-day period for which plaintiff, as the prevailing party, may make a timely application 2 ||for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); 3 || Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: February 9, 2023 Jie. La, 6 G Wii eo 7 Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28