Smith v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 2:2022cv02159 - Document 19 (W.D. Ark. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on March 6, 2023. (jlm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION NATHAN P. SMITH v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL NO. 2:22-cv-02159-MEF KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Nathan Smith, 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, a period of disability, and supplemental security income. (ECF No. 2). The Commissioner filed an answer to Plaintiff’s action on December 2, 2022, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (ECF No. 10). On March 3, 2023, 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. 17, 18). 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). Dockets.Justia.com Here, we find remand is appropriate to allow the Defendant to conduct further administrative proceedings regarding this matter. Therefore, the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g). DATED this 6th day of March 2023. /s/ Mark E. Ford HON. MARK E. FORD CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
