IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

VAYLE HOPE R BENEDICT PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 23-5166

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Vayle Hope R. Benedict, brings this action pursuant to

(g) seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) finding Plaintiff liable for repayment of funds. (ECF No. 3). The Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's action on January 30, 2024, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (ECF No. 7). On May 30, 2024, the Commissioner, having changed positions, filed an unopposed motion to remand requesting that Plaintiff's case be remanded 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

(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."

(g); Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993). Here, the Court finds remand for the purpose of the ALJ to further evaluate the evidence appropriate. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends granting the Commissioner's unopposed motion to reverse the decision of the ALJ and remanding this case to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g). The parties have fourteen days from receipt of our report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to

(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. DATED this 30th day of May 2024.

isi ( Asst _Comiteck CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE