Bitter v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
HILLARY C. BITTER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 25-5182
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Hillary C. Bitter, 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 a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the
provisions of Titles II of the Social Security Act (Act). 	(ECF No. 2). The Defendant filed the
administrative transcript on October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 7).
On December 19, 2025, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion to remand Plaintiff's
case pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g) in order to conduct further administrative
proceedings. (ECF No. 11).
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 5:25-cv-05182-TLB Document 13 Filed 12/19/25 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).
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 19th day of December 2025.
/s/____________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05182-TLB Document 13 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>