Nance v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 2:2017cv02082 - Document 16 (W.D. Ark. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on August 31, 2017. (mjm)
Download PDF
Nance v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION SHAWN NANCE v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL NO. 2:17-cv-2082-MEF NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Shawn Nance, 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 her applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). ECF No. 1. This matter is presently before the undersigned by consent of the parties. ECF No. 5. The Commissioner filed an answer to Plaintiff’s action on July 25, 2017, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. ECF No. 11. On August 29, 2017, having changed positions, the Commissioner filed a motion requesting that Plaintiff’s case be remanded pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g) in order to conduct further administrative proceedings. ECF No. 14. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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, the Commissioner’s motion to remand is hereby GRANTED and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g). DATED this 31st day of August, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Ford HONORABLE MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2