Tubberville v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on February 6, 2024. (jlm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER TUBBERVILLE
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 23-6092
MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, 1 Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Christopher Tubberville, 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 application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI
of the Social Security Act (Act). (ECF No. 4). The Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's action
on October 13, 2023. (ECF No. 7).
On February 6, 2024, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion to remand Plaintiff's
case pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g) in order to conduct further administrative
proceedings. (ECF No. 16).
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 a remand
before answering the complaint, or where the court orders the Commissioner to consider new,
Martin J. O’Malley, has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, and is substituted as Defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
1
1
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 (1993).
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds appropriate remand for further administrative
action pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g).
DATED this 6th day of February 2024.
/s/_________________________________
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?