Kareem Tavares Martin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

E.D. Arkansas

Kareem Tavares Martin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided January 16, 2026·No. 4:24-cv-00978·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION KAREEM TAVARES MARTIN PLAINTIFF Case No. 4:24-cv-00978-LPR COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore (Doc. 12). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the case record, the Court concludes that the RD should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all respects.! IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. This is a “sentence four” remand within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). DATED this 16th day of January 2026.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' The Court acknowledges that the burden of proof and persuasion is on the claimant to show an error was not harmless. See Byes vy. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2012) (“To show an error was not harmless, [the claimant] must provide some indication that the ALJ would have decided differently if the error had not occurred.”). For essentially the reasons explained in the RD at pages 11-14, the claimant has (just) met this threshold. Nonetheless, the Court wants to make clear that it, like the RD, is not at all certain that, ultimately, the ALJ’s new decision will have a different result than the current decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION KAREEM TAVARES MARTIN PLAINTIFF Case No. 4:24-cv-00978-LPR COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore (Doc. 12). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the case record, the Court concludes that the RD should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all respects.! IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. This is a “sentence four” remand within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). DATED this 16th day of January 2026.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' The Court acknowledges that the burden of proof and persuasion is on the claimant to show an error was not harmless. See Byes vy. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir. 2012) (“To show an error was not harmless, [the claimant] must provide some indication that the ALJ would have decided differently if the error had not occurred.”). For essentially the reasons explained in the RD at pages 11-14, the claimant has (just) met this threshold. Nonetheless, the Court wants to make clear that it, like the RD, is not at all certain that, ultimately, the ALJ’s new decision will have a different result than the current decision.

Kareem Tavares Martin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2026).

Pincite

Kareem Tavares Martin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (Kareem Tavares Martin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related