Richardel v. Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER AND REASONS Remanding Case to Social Security: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 17 Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioners decision is REVERSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Court will enter a separate judgment. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 3/7/2025.(mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHANTEL RICHARDEL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 24-2093

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

SECTION: D(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand
filed by Defendant Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 1 Plaintiff
Chantel Richardel does not oppose the Motion.

After careful consideration of

Defendant’s memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS
the Motion.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this suit for judicial review of an administrative decision by the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff’s application
for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits
for lack of disability. 2 In her Complaint, Plaintiff requests an order finding that she
is entitled to the benefits she seeks or an order remanding this case for a further
hearing. 3 In the instant Motion, which Plaintiff consents to, Defendant seeks to
remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). 4

1 R. Doc. 17.

2 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 1.
3 Id. at 2.

4 R. Doc. 17.

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Sentence four of Section 405(g) provides that “[t]he court shall have 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.” 5 A sentence four remand requires
entry of a judgment. 6
Here, Defendant requests reversal and remand “to allow the Commissioner to
conduct further administrative proceedings.” 7 This request is equivalent to the need
for further factfinding. Moreover, “[t]he Supreme Court has noted that a remand for
further administrative proceedings, such as the requested remand in the instant case,
is a sentence four remand.” 8 After careful consideration of the record in this matter,
the Court finds that the requirements of sentence four of Section 405(g) have been
met and that it is appropriate to remand this matter.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and
Remand 9 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED.

5 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

6 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993).
7 R. Doc. 17 at ¶ 1.

8 Fitzgerald v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-148, 2022 WL 1037461, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2022), report and

recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 1028074 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2022) (citing Shalada, 509 U.S. at 298).

9 R. Doc. 17.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the
Commissioner for further proceedings. The Court will enter a separate judgment.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 7, 2025.

_____________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge