The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
BILLY BROWN PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL NO. 2:22-cv-02068-PKH-MEF
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Billy Brown, 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 applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (ECF
No. 2). This matter is before the undersigned for report and recommendation.
The Commissioner filed an answer to Plaintiff’s action on June 30, 2022, asserting that the
findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (ECF
No. 12). On October 5, 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 Nos. 20, 21).
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 Defendants to conduct further
administrative proceedings regarding this matter. Therefore, we recommend granting the
Commissioner’s motion and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further administrative
action pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g).
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
written 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 5th day of October 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE