Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Florida

Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedApril 10, 2025

Docket8:24-cv-02042

StatusUnknown

This text of Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security (Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

BEAUBIEN ABREU,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-2042-CPT

LELAND DUDEK, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,1

Defendant. _______________________________________/

O R D E R Before the Court is Defendant Commissioner’s unopposed motion to remand this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 29). The Commissioner seeks this relief so that, on remand, an administrative law judge can “(1) reevaluate the evidence in accordance with the agency’s regulations and policies; (2) take any further action needed to complete the administrative record, including offering [the] Plaintiff a new hearing; and (3) issue a new decision.” Id.

1 Mr. Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 16, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Mr. Dudek is substituted for the former Acting Commissioner, Michelle King, as the Defendant in this suit. Sentence four of section 405(g) provides that a “court shall have [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 cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In a sentence four remand, the appropriate procedure is for a court to enter a final judgment in the claimant’s favor. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-97 (1993); Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1095 (11th Cir. 1996). In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 29) is granted. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration consistent with this Order. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in the Plaintiffs favor, to terminate any pending motions, and to close the case. SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of April 2025.

CU bitsAvciay Al. HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Counsel of record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

BEAUBIEN ABREU,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-2042-CPT

LELAND DUDEK, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,1

Defendant. _______________________________________/

O R D E R Before the Court is Defendant Commissioner’s unopposed motion to remand this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 29). The Commissioner seeks this relief so that, on remand, an administrative law judge can “(1) reevaluate the evidence in accordance with the agency’s regulations and policies; (2) take any further action needed to complete the administrative record, including offering [the] Plaintiff a new hearing; and (3) issue a new decision.” Id.

1 Mr. Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 16, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Mr. Dudek is substituted for the former Acting Commissioner, Michelle King, as the Defendant in this suit. Sentence four of section 405(g) provides that a “court shall have [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 cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In a sentence four remand, the appropriate procedure is for a court to enter a final judgment in the claimant’s favor. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-97 (1993); Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1095 (11th Cir. 1996). In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Commissioner’s motion (Doc. 29) is granted. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration consistent with this Order. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in the Plaintiffs favor, to terminate any pending motions, and to close the case. SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of April 2025.

CU bitsAvciay Al. HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Counsel of record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-commissioner-of-social-security-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack