Matheny v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on May 4, 2017. (rg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1 Commissioner
Social Security Administration
Plaintiff, James Matheny, 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 disability insurance benefits (DIB) and
supplemental security income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. (Doc.
1). The Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's action on March 10, 2017, asserting that the
findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive.
On May 3, 2017, the Commissioner, having changed positions, filed an unopposed
motion requesting that Plaintiff's case be remanded pursuant to "sentence four" of section
405(g) in order to conduct further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 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). A
remand pursuant to "sentence six" is limited to two situations: where the Commissioner
Nancy A. Berryhill, has been appointed to serve as acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as
Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 further evaluate the evidence
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds remand appropriate and grants the
Commissioner’s unopposed motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further
administrative action pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g).
DATED this 4th day of May, 2017.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
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?