Ross v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
FRED EDWARD ROSS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 6:25-cv-06117-MEF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner0F
1
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION
Fred Ross (“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 his application for disability benefits. 	(ECF No. 2). 	This matter is
presently before the undersigned by consent of the parties. (ECF No. 5).
In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on January 21,
2026, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and
were conclusive. (ECF No. 6). See FED. R. C IV. P. S UPP SS R ULE 4. On April 13, 2026, 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. 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
1 Frank Bisignano was sworn in to serve as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
on May 7, 2025, and in his official capacity is substituted as defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Case 6:25-cv-06117-MEF Document 14 Filed 05/26/26 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 is hereby granted, and the
case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence four”
of section 405(g).
DATED this 26th day of May 2026.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06117-MEF Document 14 Filed 05/26/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>