Jackson v. Commissioner Of Social Security

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DEBORAH ELAINE J.,1
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 4:25-cv-5554
JUDGE PALERMO’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Deborah Elaine J. (“Plaintiff”) filed this suit seeking judicial review
of an administrative decision. ECF No. 1. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Plaintiff appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). Plaintiff filed
a motion for summary judgment. Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff seeks an order
remanding the case for an award of benefits or further consideration, arguing that
the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 12.
Defendant does not address Plaintiff’s arguments but requests the Court reverse and
1 The Court uses only Plaintiff’s first name and last initial. See “Memorandum Re: Privacy
Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions,” Committee on Court
Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1,
2018).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05554 Document 16 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
remand the case to the Commissioner. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 15.2 Plaintiff does not
oppose Defendant’s motion. ECF No. 15 at 4. Based on the record and the applicable
law, the Court finds Defendant’s motion to reverse and remand should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is 61 years old and earned a Bachelor of Science in chemical
engineering. R. 45, 69, 168.3 Plaintiff has relevant past work as a mechanical
engineering technician. R. 67, 76. Plaintiff claims she suffers physical and mental
impairments. R. 59, 69.
On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed her application for Disability Insurance
Benefits under Title II of the Act. R. 168–77. Plaintiff based her application on “pain
in knees, hips, feet, hands, carpal tunnel, inflammatory arthritis, diabetes,
hypertension, obesity, neuropathy, [high blood pressure], high cholesterol, and
depression.” R. 59. The Commissioner denied her claim initially, R. 59–67, and on
reconsideration, R. 69–77.
A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). R. 39–58.
An attorney represented Plaintiff at the hearing. Plaintiff and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified at the hearing. The ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s claims
2 The district judge to whom this case is assigned referred it for all pretrial purposes. Order, ECF
No. 5. A motion to remand is dispositive and appropriate for a Report and Recommendation.
Davidson v. Georgia-Pac., L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 765 (5th Cir. 2016).
3 “R.” citations refer to the electronically filed Administrative Record, ECF Nos. 7, 8.
Case 4:25-cv-05554 Document 16 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
for benefits.4 R. 15–38. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review,
affirming the ALJ’s denial of benefits. R. 1–6. Plaintiff filed this action, appealing
the determination. ECF No. 1.
II. REMAND IS APPROPRIATE.
Defendant requested the Court reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative
proceedings and enter a final judgment. ECF No. 15. Defendant represents Plaintiff
does not oppose the motion. Id. at 4.
A district court, reviewing final agency decisions on Social Security benefits,
may remand only pursuant to sentence four5 or sentence six6 of § 405(g). Shalala v.
Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). A sentence four remand “authorizes a court to
4 An ALJ must follow five steps in determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920(a)(4). The ALJ here determined Plaintiff was not disabled at step four. R. 31. The ALJ found
that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a mechanical engineering technician, and
therefore, was not disabled. R. 31.
5 Sentence four 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), sentence four.
6 Sentence six provides that “[t]he court may, on motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made
for good cause shown before the Commissioner files the Commissioner's answer, remand the case to
the Commissioner of Social Security for further action by the Commissioner of Social Security, and it
may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but
only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the
failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
sentence six. A sentence six remand “may be ordered in only two situations: where the [Commissioner]
requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where new, material evidence is adduced that
was for good cause not presented before the agency.” Shalala, 509 U.S. at 297 n.2 (citing § 405(g),
sentence six). Because the Commissioner already answered, ECF Nos. 7, 8, and has not presented any
new evidence, ECF No. 15, sentence six is not applicable here.
Case 4:25-cv-05554 Document 16 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
[Commissioner], with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” Melkonyan
v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (quoting § 405(g), sentence four) (quotations
removed). Also, for a sentence four remand, the district court has the power to enter
the order “upon the pleadings and transcript of record.” 42 U.S.C. 405(g). “The
Supreme Court has noted that a remand for further administrative proceedings, such
as the requested remand in the instant case, is a sentence four remand.” Fitzgerald
v. Kijakazi, No. 7:21-CV-00148, 2022 WL 1037461, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29,
2022), adopted, No. CV M-21-148, 2022 WL 1028074 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2022)
(where the defendant requested reversal and remand for further administrative
proceedings (citing Shalala, 509 U.S. at 298; Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617,
626 (1990))). A sentence four remand requires entry of a judgment. Id. (citing
Shalala, 509 U.S. at 297-98; see Luna v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 948
F.2d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Here, Defendant requests reversal and remand for further administrative
proceedings. ECF No. 15. A request for reversal and remand based on a request for
further administrative proceedings is equivalent to the need for further factfinding
and is thus proper pursuant to § 405(g). Fitzgerald, 2022 WL 1037461, at *4.
Therefore, pursuant to § 405(g), reversal and remand are proper along with entry of
a final judgment. See Fitzgerald, 2022 WL 1037461, at *4 (finding reversal and
Case 4:25-cv-05554 Document 16 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
remand proper along with entry of a final judgment, pursuant to § 405(g)); accord
Teresa F. v. Kijakazi, No. 4:21-CV-0459, 2022 WL 17586026, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct.
28, 2022), adopted sub nom. Fulks v. Saul, No. 4:21-CV-00459, 2022 WL 17586292
(S.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2022) (same); Huda I. v. Kijakazi, No. 4:22-CV-0707, 2022 WL
17586027, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2022), adopted sub nom. Ibrahim v. Kijakazi,
No. 4:22-CV-00707, 2022 WL 17586020 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2022) (same); Judge
H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:21-CV-3595, 2022 WL 16577317, at *2–3 (S.D.
Tex. Oct. 31, 2022) (same).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion to reverse and remand,
ECF No. 15, be GRANTED and that the Commissioner’s determination that
Plaintiff is not disabled be REVERSED. The Court further RECOMMENDS that
this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings, Plaintiff’s
Complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, ECF No. 12 be DENIED as moot, and that the Court enter a
separate final judgment.
The Parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude review of factual
findings or legal conclusions, except for plain error. Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d
Case 4:25-cv-05554 Document 16 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017).
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on July 20, 2026.
_______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05554 Document 16 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6