Hollis v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
TRACY HOLLIS 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CIVIL NO. 2:20-cv-2151-PKH-MEF
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner 	DEFENDANT
Social Security Administration
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Tracy Hollis, 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 application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). 	(ECF No. 2). 	This matter is
before the undersigned for report and recommendation.
The Commissioner filed an answer to Plaintiff’s action on December 29, 2020, asserting
that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive.
(ECF No. 13). 	On April 29, 2021, having changed positions, the Commissioner filed a motion
requesting that Plaintiff’s case be remanded pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g) to allow
further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 20).
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
Case 2:20-cv-02151-TLB Document 21 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 3rd day of May 2021.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:20-cv-02151-TLB Document 21 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>