Cunningham v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MELISSA CUNNINGHAM 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 2:24-cv-02107-MEF
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Melissa Cunningham (“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 (the
“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 2). The parties have
consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, and
pursuant to said authority, the Court issues this Order. (ECF No. 7).
In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on October 15,
2024, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and
were conclusive. 	(ECF No. 8). 	See FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP SS RULE 4. 	On November 20, 2024,
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 conduct further administrative
proceedings. (ECF Nos. 14, 15).
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
Case 2:24-cv-02107-MEF Document 16 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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). 	The Supreme Court has held that a remand for further
administrative proceedings, such as the remand requested here, is a sentence four remand within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1991).
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED,
and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to
“sentence four” of section 405(g).
DATED this 21st day of November 2024.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HONORABLE MARK E. FORD
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02107-MEF Document 16 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>