Price v. Bisignano

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CHERYL PRICE, Plaintiff, 8:25CV252 v. ORDER FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on an Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Filing No. 16) filed by defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”).1 See also 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) (incorporating § 405(g)). Also pending before the Court is plaintiff Cheryl Price’s (“Price”) Motion for an Order Reversing the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 12) denying her claims for disability benefits under Title II of the Act and for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act.

As revealed in the title of the Commissioner’s motion, he asks the Court to (1) reverse his final decision denying Price’s claims and (2) remand this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (describing the Court’s remand authority under § 405(g)).

He asserts that on “remand, an administrative law judge will offer [Price] the opportunity for a hearing and will issue a new decision.” See Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625 1Sentence four of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), codified at § 405(g), empowers the Court “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.” (1990) (discussing district courts’ authority to remand for rehearing under sentence four).

The Commissioner’s motion—which he reports is unopposed—aligns with Price’s alternative request for relief in this case.

In light of the parties’ agreement as to the best path forward in this case, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Commissioner of Social Security Frank Bisignano’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Filing No. 16) is granted.

2. The Commissioner’s final decision is reversed, and this case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.

3. Plaintiff Cheryl Price’s Motion for an Order Reversing the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing. No. 12) is denied as moot.

4. A separate judgment will issue.

Dated this 3rd day of September 2025.

BY THE COURT: Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge