Bohl v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: May 7, 2018
• Docket: 2:18-cv-02003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

KRISTIE BOHL PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL NO. 2:18-cv-2003-MEF

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Kristie Bohl, 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 (Commissioner) denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). (ECF No. 1). This matter is presently before the undersigned by consent of the parties. (ECF No. 5). The Commissioner filed an answer to Plaintiff’s action on March 19, 2018, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (ECF No. 12). On May 2, 2018, having changed positions, the Commissioner filed a 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. 20). 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). Here, we find remand is appropriate to allow the Defendants to conduct further administrative proceedings regarding this matter. Therefore, the Commissioner’s 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 7th day of May, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HONORABLE MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE