Andre v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
LUDOVIC R. ANDRE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 5:25-cv-05219
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner 	DEFENDANT
Social Security Administration
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, Ludovic R. Andre, 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 claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A). (ECF No. 2). The Defendant filed the administrative transcript on December 12,
2025. (ECF No. 11).
On March 25, 2026, the Commissioner 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. (ECF No. 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
Case 5:25-cv-05219-TLB Document 20 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

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, the Court finds remand
for the purpose of the ALJ to further evaluate the evidence appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends granting the Commissioner's
Unopposed Motion for Reversal and Remand, remanding this case to the Commissioner for
further administrative action pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g).
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of our report and recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
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 25th day of March 2026.
/s/ 	.
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05219-TLB Document 20 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>