Estes v. Kijakazi (CONSENT), No. 3:2021cv00753 - Document 22 (M.D. Ala. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to Defendant filed by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on 6/10/202 2. (Doc. No. 20 .) It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Commissioner's motion (Doc. No. 20 ) is GRANTED. 2. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. 3. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). A separate final judgment will issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Jerusha T. Adams on 6/13/2022. Furnished SSA Chief Judge and SSA Office of Hearings and Appeals. (dmn, )

Download PDF
Estes v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) Doc. 22 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DONALD W. ESTES, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-cv-753-JTA ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to Defendant filed by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on June 10, 2022. (Doc. No. 20.) In her Memorandum in Support of her Motion, the Acting Commissioner states remand is appropriate so the agency can further consider the medical evidence. (Doc. No. 21 at 1.) Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court may remand a case to the Commissioner for a rehearing if the court finds “either . . . the decision is not supported by substantial evidence, or . . . the Commissioner or the ALJ incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996). Dockets.Justia.com Here, the Court finds remand necessary as the Acting Commissioner concedes that further consideration of the relevant medical evidence is in order. Moreover, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (See Docs. No. 20 and 21.) Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have consented to the full jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Docs. No. 15, 16.) Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Commissioner’s motion (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. 2. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. 3. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A separate final judgment will issue. DONE this 13th day of June, 2022. JERUSHA T. ADAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.