Hillary C. Bitter v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner Social Security Administration

Opinion

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 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.

is/_( Asst _Comatack CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE