Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed 18 Motion to Reverse and Remand be GRANTED, and judgment be entered REVERSING the Commissioner's decision and REMANDING the case for further administrative proceedings as stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault on 8/28/2024. (alm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN HOMER SMITH

*

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

*

NO. 24-244

MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

*

DIVISION: 2

*

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT

ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff John Homer Smith filed this suit seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) under section 405(g)
of the Social Security Act (“the Act”) and U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). ECF No. 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) and the unanimous consent of the parties, the matter was referred to a magistrate judge
for disposition. ECF No. 19.
Pending before me is the Commissioner of Social Security's Unopposed Ex Parte Motion
to Reverse and Remand. ECF No. 18. For the reasons below, the undersigned grants the motion,
reverses the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision, and remands this matter for further
administrative proceedings in accordance with sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judgment
dismissing this case will be entered accordingly.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff applied for SSI and DIB on January 26, 2007, and on March 2, 2012, was found

disabled as of August 1, 2007, based on Affective disorders. ECF No. 10 at 324-330, 135-36.
After a Continuing Disability Review, in August 2018, it was determined that claimant was no
longer disabled under § 223(f) and § 1614(a)(3)(A).

1

Id. at 137-47.

Plaintiff requested

reconsideration of that decision, and on June 27, 2019, the hearing officer determined he was not
disabled. Id. at 148, 158-66. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge, which was conducted before ALJ Kelly Day who issued an unfavorable decision. Id. at
173, 12-25. After the Appeals Council denied review, Plaintiff now seeks judicial review under
§ 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision. Id. at 7-9. 1
After filing a complaint for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, Plaintiff filed
a Brief/Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 14. He argues that the ALJ improperly found
medical improvement because the record was incomplete and failed to include a Comparison Point
Decision or medical records dating back to the time of that decision. ECF No. 14-1 at 3. In lieu
of responding to the summary judgment motion, the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion to
Reverse and Remand pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to allow the
Commissioner to conduct a new administrative hearing and decision.

ECF No. 18.

The

Commissioner also notes that Plaintiff has no objection to the relief sought. Id. at 3.
II.

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Section 405(g) permits only two types of remand orders: “(1) remands pursuant to the fourth

sentence, and (2) remands pursuant to the sixth sentence.” 2 In this case, Defendant seeks remand
under sentence four, which authorizes a court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing,
based on the pleadings and transcript of the record. 3
Reversal of the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further proceedings is appropriate
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) when the record is insufficient to support the

42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 416(i), 423.
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (citation omitted).
3
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
1
2

2

Commissioner’s conclusions and further fact-finding is necessary. 4 A sentence four remand
requires the district court to enter a decision on the merits before remanding a case to the
Commissioner. 5 Thus, a request to remand for further administrative proceedings, like the remand
requested in the Commissioner’s motion, is a fourth sentence remand under section 405(g) and
requires that the court enter a decision, 6 which in this case is a requested reversal.
The Commissioner’s motion apparently, though not expressly, concedes that substantial
evidence in the record is lacking at this time to uphold the decision when she asks that the court
reverse that decision so that further proceedings may be conducted.

ECF No. 18 at 1-2.

Accordingly, it appears that good cause exists to support reversal of the decision and to remand
this case.
III.

CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, and for

the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand (ECF No.
18) be GRANTED, and judgment be entered REVERSING the Commissioner's decision and
REMANDING the case for further administrative proceedings.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th
____ day of August, 2024.

___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993) (stating that a district court remanding a case
pursuant to sentence four of Social Security Act must enter judgment either affirming, reversing or modifying the
decision of the Commissioner); Sullivan, 496 U.S. at 625-26.
5
Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98.
6
See Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625-26 (1990) (sentence four provides the appropriate relief when the
evidence on the record does not support the Commissioner's conclusions and further fact finding is necessary).
4

3