Wagner v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on August 14, 2014. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
JO LYNNE WAGNER
CIVIL NO. 14-2136
CAROLYN W. COLVIN1, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
Jo Lynne Wagner (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking
judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying her application for benefits. ECF No. 1. On August 12, 2014, without
filing an answer, the Commissioner filed a motion to remand pursuant to sentence six of section
205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF. No. 11.
The Commissioner requests that remand be granted because the hearing decision does not
contain an adequate evaluation of the opinion evidence from Dr. Chester Carlson, and the opinions
of state agency medical consultants, Drs. Jonathan Norcross and Ramona Bates, addressing
Plaintiff’s manipulative limitations are not included in the Administrative Law Judge’s residual
functional capacity assessment (“RFC”). ECF No. 12.
The exclusive methods by which a district court may remand a social security case to the
Commissioner are set forth in “sentence four” and “sentence six” of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Sentence
six of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), provides
Carolyn W. Colvin became the Social Security Commissioner on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule
25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin has been substituted for Commissioner Michael
J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit.
The court may, on motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made for good
cause shown before the Commissioner files the Commissioner's answer, remand the
case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further action by the Commissioner
of Social Security ....
See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 n.2 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101 n.2
(1991). A court is authorized to remand a case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six “if
three requirements are met: (1) the Commissioner made the motion for remand, (2) the motion was
made prior to the time the Commissioner’s answer was filed, and (3) the Commissioner established
good cause for the remand.” See Duren v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3675191, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 30,
Here, we find remand that the Commissioner has met three requirements for a sentence six
remand. Therefore, the Commissioner’s motion to remand is hereby GRANTED and the case is
remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence six” of section
DATED this 14th day of August 2014.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?