Campbell v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETEVILLE DIVISION
SHEILA CAMPBELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 23-5063
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 	DEFENDANT
Social Security Administration
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, Sheila Campbell, 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 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). 	On September 12, 2023, 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. 10).
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."
Case 5:23-cv-05063-TLB Document 17 Filed 09/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

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 	to 	reverse the decision 	of 	the ALJ 	and 	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 12th day of September 2023.
/s/ 	.
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-05063-TLB Document 17 Filed 09/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>