Ledbetter v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, No. 3:2018cv03090 - Document 15 (W.D. Ark. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on June 10, 2019. (tg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ledbetter v. Social Security Administration Commissioner Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION KYLE E. LEDBETTER PLAINTIFF v. NO. 18-3090 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Kyle E. Ledbetter, 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 application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). The Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's action on December 26, 2018, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (Doc. 9). On June 7, 2019, the Commissioner, having changed positions, filed an unopposed motion requesting that Plaintiff's case be remanded pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g) in order to conduct further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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, 113 S.Ct. 2625 (1993). Here, the Court finds remand for the purpose of the ALJ to further evaluate the evidence appropriate. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds remand appropriate and grants the Commissioner's unopposed motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g). DATED this 10th day of June 2019. /s/ Erin L. Wiedemann HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN 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.
