Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MARK CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:21-cv-116-SPC-MRM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER1 Before the Court is the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. (Doc. 21). The Commissioner believes that remand is appropriate to accomplish the following: [T]he Commissioner will obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to determine whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, pose a complete hypothetical question to the vocational expert that includes all the Plaintiff’s exertional and non-exertional limitations, identify and resolve any apparent conflicts between the vocational expert’s testimony and information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a new hearing, and take any other action deemed necessary.

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. (Doc. 21 at 1). Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power to enter judgment,

reversing and remanding a social security case for rehearing. See also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-98 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1991). Given the parties’ representations and agreement on the matter, the Court grants the Motion, reverses, and remands for further

proceedings. See Morgan v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-615-FtM-29SPC, 2012 WL 695840, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2012). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

(1) The Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. (2) The decision denying benefits is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for

further proceedings. (3) If Plaintiff prevails on remand, Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s November 14, 2012, standing order in Miscellaneous Case No. 6:12-mc-124-Orl-22.

(4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate all deadlines, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 2, 2021.

ites POLSTER atta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record