Hurt v. Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Florida

Hurt v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJuly 16, 2024

Docket8:24-cv-00116

StatusUnknown

This text of Hurt v. Commissioner of Social Security (Hurt 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

Hurt v. Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DUANE ALEXANDER HURT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-116-CPT

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

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. 15). The Commissioner represents that, on remand, an administrative law judge (1) “will offer the [Plaintiff] an opportunity for a supplemental hearing;” (2) “will obtain updated vocational expert testimony on the [question] of whether there are a substantial number of jobs in the national economy that [the] Plaintiff can perform,” if such testimony is warranted; and (3) will issue a new decision. Id. The Commissioner also represents that the Plaintiff does not object to this relief. Id. 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. 15) 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 Plaintiff's favor, to terminate any pending motions, and to close the case. SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of July 2024. bear "e Ack. 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

DUANE ALEXANDER HURT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-116-CPT

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

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. 15). The Commissioner represents that, on remand, an administrative law judge (1) “will offer the [Plaintiff] an opportunity for a supplemental hearing;” (2) “will obtain updated vocational expert testimony on the [question] of whether there are a substantial number of jobs in the national economy that [the] Plaintiff can perform,” if such testimony is warranted; and (3) will issue a new decision. Id. The Commissioner also represents that the Plaintiff does not object to this relief. Id. 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. 15) 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 Plaintiff's favor, to terminate any pending motions, and to close the case. SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of July 2024. bear "e Ack. HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Counsel of record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hurt v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurt-v-commissioner-of-social-security-flmd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack