Allen v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on July 27, 2011. (mfr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CARA ALLEN
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:11-cv-04040

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Commissioner, Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending now before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six.
ECF No. 7.1 Plaintiff has responded to this Motion and has no objections to this Motion. ECF No.
9. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and
conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to this authority, this Court enters
this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1.

Background
On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter. ECF No. 1. Defendant has not filed

an answer. On July 19, 2011, Defendant filed the present Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six.
ECF No. 7. With this Motion, Defendant seeks a remand of Plaintiff’s case “in light of additional
evidence” and requests a remand so “Defendant may review the case de novo, conduct further
administrative proceedings, and issue a new decision.” Id. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s
request to remand this action. ECF No. 9.
2.

Applicable Law
Pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a federal district court is permitted, on a

1

The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ____”

motion of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), to remand a case for further administrative
review. Such a remand is a “Sentence Six” remand. Id. The requirements for this remand are the
following: (1) the motion must be made by the SSA before its answer; and (2) the motion must be
based upon “good cause.”
3.

Discussion
In the present action, the SSA has not answered, and the SSA made this motion to remand.

ECF No. 7. Therefore, the first requirement of the Sentence Six remand is met. Second, the SSA has
demonstrated there is good cause for this remand by stating that a remand is necessary “in light of
additional evidence.” Thus, the second requirement of a Sentence Six remand is met. Plaintiff also
does not object to SSA’s request for a remand. ECF No. 9. Accordingly, because both the
requirements for a Sentence Six remand are met and because Plaintiff has no objections to this remand,
this Court finds Plaintiff’s case should be remanded pursuant to Sentence Six.
4.

Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Remand Pursuant to

Sentence Six. ECF No. 9. A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 58.
ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2011.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2