CAMERON v. KIJAKAZI, No. 1:2022cv00465 - Document 18 (D.D.C. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding Defendant's Unopposed 15 Motion to Remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather on 2/17/2023. (zea)

Download PDF
CAMERON v. KIJAKAZI Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL CAMERON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 22-cv-465-RMM KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Cameron brought this case seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner to deny his Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The Commissioner filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand, requesting that the Court remand Mr. Cameron’s claim “to allow the Commissioner to remand Plaintiff’s claim to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for further administrative proceedings on two separate matters brought by Plaintiff.” Def.’s Mot. for Remand, ECF No. 15 at 1. Mr. Cameron does not oppose the Commissioner’s motion. See id. at 2. The parties then filed a joint motion to stay and/or extend the briefing schedule, ECF No. 16, and the Court stayed the briefing pending a resolution on the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for remand, Minute Order, Sept. 26, 2022. Therefore, a motion for judgment of reversal has not been filed by Mr. Cameron, nor has a motion for judgment of affirmance been filed by the Commissioner. This Court remanded an ALJ’s previous January 26, 2018 decision regarding Mr. Cameron’s benefits in July of 2022. See Cameron v. Berryhill, Civ. No. 18-1935-JDB/RMM, ECF No. 23 (D.D.C. July 21, 2022); Def.’s Mot. for Remand, ECF No. 15 at 1. Mr. Cameron now seeks a remand with instructions to consolidate the previous case with the present one so that a new decision may be adjudicated. See Def.’s Mot. for Remand, ECF No. 15 at 1–2. This 1 Dockets.Justia.com Court notes that Mr. Cameron has filed a Notice of Related Case to Cameron v. Berryhill per Local Rule 40.5(b)(2). See Notice of Related Case, ECF. No. 2; Local Rule 40.5(b)(2). 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 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). Courts in this District have remanded cases under sentence four even when the claimant has not filed a Motion for Judgment of Reversal. See, e.g., Clark v. Astrue, No. 09-cv-1568, 2009 WL 3245208 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2009) (granting Defendant’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand prior to any briefing regarding motions for judgment of reversal and affirmance). Consistent with sentence four of Section 405(g) and the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for remand, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand and REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings with instructions to consolidate the claim files, associate the evidence, and issue a new decision on the consolidated claims in the present case with those in Cameron v. Berryhill. SO ORDERED this February 17, 2023. ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER 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.