Jackson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION: Granting 6 MOTION to Remand filed by Social Security Administration Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 6, 2011. (dmc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
Civil No. 6:10-cv-06077
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
BEFORE the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 6.1 The Plaintiff has not
responded to this Motion. 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. The Court, having
reviewed the motion, finds Defendant’s Motion To Remand should be GRANTED.
Defendant moves this Court to remand this case for further administrative action. Defendant
states the Appeals Council wishes to take further administrative action pursuant to sentence six of
section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), which provides:
“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 . . .”
According to Defendant, the Social Security Administration is unable to locate the claims
file of the Administrative Law Judge’s December 2, 2009 decision and the recording of the hearing
The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No.”
held on July 29, 2009. ECF No. 7. Defendant states that upon receipt of a court order, the Appeals
Council will be able to remand the case to an Administrative Law Judge who will reconstruct the
administrative record, hold another hearing, and issue a new decision. ECF No. 7.
The joint conference committee of Congress, in reporting upon the Social Security Disability
Amendments of 1980 (to the Social Security Act), stated in some cases procedural difficulties, such
as an inaudible hearing tape or a lost file, necessitate a request for remand by the Commissioner. The
agreement of the joint conference committee was that such procedural defects be considered "good
cause" for remand. The committee stated:
"Such a situation is an example of what could be considered 'good cause' for remand.
Where, for example, the tape recording of the claimant's oral hearing is lost or
inaudible or cannot otherwise be transcribed, or where the claimant's files cannot be
located or are incomplete, good cause would exist to remand the claim to the
Secretary for appropriate action to produce a record which the courts may review
under 205(g) of the Act."
See, H.R. Rep. No. 96-944, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1980).
I find that good cause exists for remand and this matter should be remanded so the
administrative record can be prepared.
Based upon the forgoing, Defendant’s Motion To Remand (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED, and
this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to sentence six
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2011.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. 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?