Hester v. Saul ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
YVETTE HESTER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 21-cv-98-RMM
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Yvette Hester brought this case seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner
to deny her Supplemental Security Income Benefits. See Compl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 1. She moved
for entry of a judgment reversing the Commissioner’s decision or, in the alternative, remanding
the decision 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. 17. Rather than respond to Ms. Hester’s motion, the Commissioner filed a Motion for
Entry of Judgment with Remand, requesting that the Court remand Ms. Hester’s claim “so that the
Commission may remand the claim to an administrative law judge to hold a new hearing and issue
a new decision.” Def. Mot. for Remand, ECF No. 18. Ms. Hester does not oppose the
Commissioner’s motion. See id. 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 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 her 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 Ms. Hester’s Motion
for Judgment of Reversal was due on January 17, 2022. See Nov. 15, 2021 Min. Order. The
Commissioner did not file an opposition or seek an extension of time to do so. She has thus
conceded the arguments in Ms. Hester’s motion and brief in support, and the Court accordingly
GRANTS Ms. Hester’s Motion for Judgment of Reversal. Consistent with sentence four of
Section 405(g) and the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for remand, the Court also GRANTS
the Commissioner’s Motion for Remand and REMANDS this matter for further administrative
proceedings.
SO ORDERED this March 23, 2022.
ROBIN M. MERIWEATHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE