Cunningham v. Social Security Administration Commissioner ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION MELISSA CUNNINGHAM PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL NO. 2:23-cv-2053-MEF KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Melissa Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) 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 (the “Commissioner”) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). (ECF No. 2). This matter is presently before the undersigned by consent of the parties. (ECF No. 4). The Commissioner filed the administrative transcript in lieu of an answer on August 10, 2023, pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 9). On December 4, 2023, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion requesting that Plaintiff’s case be remanded pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g) to allow further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 18). 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, 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). Here, we find remand is appropriate to allow the Defendant to conduct further administrative proceedings regarding this matter. Therefore, the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g). DATED this 7th day of December 2023. /s/ Mark E. Ford HONORABLE MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE