Fouts v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Setser on May 2, 2011. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BRIAN L. FOUTS
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reversal and Remand. (Doc. 14). Defendant
seeks a remand because the transcript is incomplete, in that it does not contain vocational expert
testimony that the ALJ referred to in his decision. Upon remand, the ALJ will hold a de novo
hearing with vocational expert testimony.
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). A
remand pursuant to "sentence six" is limited to two situations: where the Commissioner requests
a remand before answering the complaint, or where the court orders the Commissioner to
consider new, material evidence that was for good cause not presented before the agency. The
Fourth sentence of the statute 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."
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296, 113 S.Ct. 2625 (1993).
Here, the Court finds remand for the purpose of the ALJ to conduct a de novo hearing
with vocational expert testimony as addressed above appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds remand appropriate and grant the Commissioner's
motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to
"sentence four" of section 405(g).
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2011.
/s/ Erin L. Setser
HON. ERIN L. SETSER
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?