Beckett v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Setser on March 16, 2016. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROGER D. BECKETT

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL NO. 15-5191

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Roger Beckett, 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 his applications for a period of disability and disability insurance
benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. (Doc. 1). The Defendant filed
an answer to Plaintiff's action on January 15, 2016, asserting that the findings of the
Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff
filed an appeal brief on February 15, 2016. (Doc. 9).
On March 10, 2016, the Commissioner, having changed positions, filed a motion
requesting that Plaintiff's case be remanded pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g) in
order to conduct further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 10). Defendant’s counsel states that
he has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, who advised there was no opposition to the motion.
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

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

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 appropriate for the purpose of allowing the ALJ to further
evaluate the evidence as addressed above.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds remand appropriate and grants 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 16th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Erin L. Setser
HON. ERIN L. SETSER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)