Wehunt v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Remand; Further REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO SENTENCE SIX of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on January 12, 2017. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
PAMELA D. WEHUNT
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 6:16-cv-06065

CAROLYN COLVIN
Commissioner, Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER
BEFORE the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand. ECF No. 17.1 The
Plaintiff does not object 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. 7.
The Court, having reviewed the motion, finds Defendant’s Unopposed Motion To Remand should
be GRANTED.
1. Background:
Defendant moves this Court to remand this case for further administrative action. Sentence
six of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), 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, remand will allow Plaintiff another opportunity for administrative
hearing.

1

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

-1-

2. Discussion:
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 Plaintiff has
another opportunity for an administrative hearing.
3. Conclusion:
Based upon the forgoing, Defendant’s Unopposed Motion To Remand (ECF No. 17) is
GRANTED, and this is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action
pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2017.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-