IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

HUNTINGTON DIVISION

AMBER LEIGH BELLOMY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:20-cv-00873

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act,

, 1381-1383f. The case is presently before the court on the Commissioner’s Uncontested Motion for Remand. (ECF No. 12). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 13). The court has fully considered the Motion for Remand and GRANTS same. Accordingly, the court finds that the decision of the Commissioner should be REVERSED and REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of

(g), for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s application as stated herein. Plaintiff, Amber Leigh Bellomy (“Claimant”), completed applications for DIB and SSI on May 18, 2018 and May 23, 2018, respectively, alleging a disability onset date of December 20, 2017, (Tr. at 201, 205). The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the applications initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 10). Claimant filed a request for a hearing, which was held on December 19, 2019 before the Honorable Jerry Meade, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. at 33-56). By written decision dated February 27, 2020, the ALJ determined that Claimant was not entitled

to benefits. (Tr. at 10-21). The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on November 19, 2020, when the Appeals Council denied Claimant’s request for review. (Tr. at 1-4). On December 28, 2020, Claimant timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review of the administrative decision pursuant to

(g). (ECF No. 2). The Commissioner filed an Answer and a Transcript of the Proceedings on March 26, 2021. (ECF Nos. 8, 9). On April 12, 2021, Claimant filed a Brief in Support of a Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings. (ECF No. 11). Thereafter, on May 4, 2021, the Commissioner filed an uncontested motion for remand, indicating that the ALJ’s decision denying benefits merited further evaluation, including an opportunity for a hearing and to take any further action needed to complete the administrative record.

(ECF No. 12). According to the Commissioner, Claimant concurred that further proceedings would be beneficial. Title

(g) authorizes the district court to remand the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration at different stages of the judicial proceedings. When the Commissioner requests remand prior to filing an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint, the presiding court may grant the request under sentence six of § 405(g), upon a showing of good cause. In addition, a court may remand the matter “at any time” under sentence six to allow “additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.”

(g). When a court remands the Commissioner’s decision under sentence six, the court retains jurisdiction over the matter, but “closes it and regards it as inactive” until

additional or modified findings are supplied to the court. See McPeak v. Barnhart,

, 745 n.2. (S.D.W. Va. 2005). In contrast, under sentence four of

(g), “[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.” Because a sentence four remand essentially “terminates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff,” the court enters a final judgment dismissing the case and removing it from the court’s docket. Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993) (“Under § 405(g), ‘each final decision of the Secretary [is] reviewable by a separate piece of litigation,” and a sentence-four remand order ‘terminate[s] the civil action’ seeking judicial review of the Secretary's final

decision.”) (quoting in Sullivan v. Hudson,

(1989). Given that the Commissioner explicitly asks for a sentence four remand,1 the court REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner; GRANTS the motion to remand, (ECF No. 12); REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of

(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and

1 Furthermore, this case does not present either of the factual scenarios that would typically support a sentence six remand. The Commissioner’s motion was not made until after the answer was filed, and neither party has, at this time, offered new evidence that was not previously made a part of the record. DISMISSES this action from the docket of the Court. A Judgment Order will be entered accordingly. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion to counsel of record. ENTERED: May 11, 2021

= 7” intl Chey Eifert U ates Magistrate Judge