Richardson v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 19, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-1682
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KEITH RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-1682-RMM v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Keith Richardson brought this case seeking judicial review of a decision of the

Commissioner to deny his Supplemental Security Income benefits. See Compl., ECF No. 1. He

moved for entry of a judgment vacating the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the matter

for further administrative proceedings, on the theory that the Commissioner’s decision lacks a

substantial evidentiary basis and is erroneous as a matter of law. See Mot. for J. of Reversal,

ECF No. 10. Rather than respond to Mr. Richardson’s motion, the Commissioner, together with

Mr. Richardson, filed a Joint Motion to Remand the case to the Social Security Administration,

requesting that the Court remand Mr. Richardson’s claim so that the “Commissioner [will]

remand the claim to an administrative law judge to offer the claimant the opportunity for a new

hearing, take any further action needed to complete the administrative record, and issue a new

decision.” Jt. Mot. for Remand, ECF No. 14 at *1.

This 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 of Social

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing” pursuant to the fourth sentence

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence-four remand is appropriate only in conjunction with a final

1 judgment on the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S.

89, 99–100 (1991). For that reason, 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, 501 U.S. at 98–101).

The Commissioner has conceded that his decision was incorrect in this matter. Under

this Court’s local rules, when an argument is advanced in support of a motion and the opposing

party fails to counter the argument in a timely opposition brief, the court may treat the argument

as conceded, even if the result is dismissal of the entire case. See Local Rule 7(b); Stephenson v.

Cox, 223 F. Supp. 2d 119, 121 (D.D.C. 2002) (collecting cases); Bancoult v. McNamara, 227 F.

Supp. 2d 144, 149 (D.D.C. 2002) (same). The Commissioner’s response to Mr. Richardson’s

Motion for Judgment of Reversal was due on February 9, 2024. See Jan. 29, 2024 Min. Order.

The Commissioner did not file an opposition or seek an extension of time to do so. He has thus

conceded the arguments in Mr. Richardson’s motion and brief in support, and the Court

accordingly GRANTS Mr. Richardson’s Motion for Judgment of Reversal. Consistent with

sentence four of Section 405(g) and the parties’ joint motion for remand, the Court also

GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand and REMANDS this matter for further

administrative proceedings.

SO ORDERED this July 19, 2024.

ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE