Carpenter v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BRENDA CARPENTER 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 6:25-cv-06069
FRANK BISIGNANO 	DEFENDANT
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Brenda Carpenter (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the
Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). On January 21, 2026,
Defendant filed a Motion for Reversal and Remand and Brief in Support. ECF Nos. 14, 14-1.1
0F
The Plaintiff has responded and objects to this Motion. ECF No. 15, 16. A hearing was held on
April 28, 2026. ECF No. 18.
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and
conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 6. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues
this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1. Background
Plaintiff’s disability claim has a long and complicated history. Plaintiff applied for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on June 30, 2004. (Tr. 15). Plaintiff received a Notice of
1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No.” The transcript
pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.”
Case 6:25-cv-06069-SGS Document 19 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Award and was found disabled as of January 2, 2003. (Tr. 103-106). Plaintiff began receiving
Disability Insurance Benefits on July 7, 2003. Id.
In June 2017, allegations of fraud, related to Plaintiff’s work history, were reported and
investigated by the Administration Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). (Tr. 15). As a part of
this investigation, Plaintiff acknowledged working as a contract employee from 2003 through 2012
at a medical clinic. 	(Tr. 113-114). 	Plaintiff also admitted to fraudulently writing medical
prescriptions after she left working at the clinic. Id.
On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff was notified that a review of her earnings from January 2003
through July 2011 showed she was not eligible for disability benefits due to substantial gainful
activity (“SGA”) within one year of receiving benefits. 	(Tr. 122-124). 	Plaintiff disputed this
finding on August 8, 2018. (Tr. 139-140). On September 29, 2018, Plaintiff was notified of the
finding that she was overpaid disability benefits in the amount of $155,065.60 based on
concealment of work activity. (Tr. 150-153). Plaintiff received later notice that based on a finding
of fault, her benefits would be withheld until the overpayment was recovered. 	(Tr. 223-225).
Plaintiff would appeal these findings, and the ALJ issued an unfavorable final decision on April
19, 2022, which found Plaintiff liable for the repayment of benefits in the amount of $155,065.60
for the period of August 1, 2003 through October 1, 2012. (Tr. 79-82).
Following the Appeals Councils denial, (Tr. 87-92), Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Defendant, Social Security
Administration, later moved for a reversal and remand of the final administrative decision pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Tr. 93-94). On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s case was
reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (Tr. 95).
Case 6:25-cv-06069-SGS Document 19 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Following the Court’s remand, the Appeals Council entered an Order on March 27, 2024,
remanding the case to the ALJ. 	(Tr. 98-100). 	Pursuant to this detailed order, the ALJ was to
further evaluate the period, amount, and fact of the overpayment based on the earning information
in the file. Id. Also, the ALJ was to further evaluate whether Plaintiff was with or without at fault
in causing the overpayment. Id. Finally, if Plaintiff was found to be without fault, the ALJ was to
determine if the recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of the Act or be against
equity and good conscience. Id.
Upon remand, Plaintiff had an administrative hearing on March 21, 2025. 	(Tr. 61-68).
Following the administrative hearing, on April 25, 2025, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision.
(Tr. 15-23). 	This new decision was nearly identical to prior decision and found Plaintiff was
(1) overpaid benefits in the amount of $155,065.60 during the period August 1, 2003, to October
1, 2012, (2) at fault in causing the overpayment, and (3) recovery of the overpayment was not
waived. Id.
Following the ALJ’s unfavorable decision, Plaintiff filed the present appeal on July 23,
2025. ECF No. 2. On January 21, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion for Reversal and Remand which
Plaintiff opposes. The Motion was heard for argument on April 28, 2026.
2. Discussion
According to Defendant, after further consideration and review of the administrative law
judge’s decision and the certified administrative record, the Commissioner respectfully requests a
remand so further administrative proceedings may be conducted. ECF No. 13.
While the Court finds merit in the motion and agrees with the relief requested, it wishes to
acknowledge the frustration expressed by Plaintiff regarding the procedural handling of this
Case 6:25-cv-06069-SGS Document 19 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
matter. The Court understands these concerns regarding the delays, but concludes that granting
the motion is the necessary and appropriate path forward at this juncture.
3. Conclusion
Based on the pleadings and arguments of the parties, Defendant’s Motion for Reversal
and Remand (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and
this matter is hereby remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
proceedings. Plaintiff may still, however, file a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Upon remand the Court also Orders the following:
(1) The Appeals Council shall assign this matter to a new Administrative Law Judge,
(2) Plaintiff’s retirement benefit payments shall be restored if currently being withheld, and
(3) The ALJ’s final decision on this matter shall be made within 180 days of this Order.
A judgment incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 52 and 58.
ENTERED this 1st day of May 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06069-SGS Document 19 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>