Harleston v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION JONATHAN E. HARLESTON PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL NO. 2:22-cv-02158-MEF KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Jonathan Harleston, 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 (“Commissioner”) denying his application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 2). The Commissioner filed an answer to Plaintiff’s action on December 2, 2022, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (ECF No. 10).

On December 19, 2022, having changed positions, 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. 13).

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 is hereby GRANTED, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g).

Further, because this Order is case dispositive, the Plaintiff’s pending Motion for an Extension of Time to file his Appeal Brief is hereby DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 14).

DATED this 5th day of January 2023. /s/ Mark E. Ford HON. MARK E. FORD CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE