Looney v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Opinion

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

DANIEL LEE LOONEY PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 2:25-cv-02045-TLB-MEF

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner1 Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Daniel Looney (“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 for report and recommendation. In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed the Social Security Transcript on July 28, 2025, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by substantial evidence and were conclusive. (ECF No. 8). See FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP SS RULE 4. On September 30, 2025, 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. 14, 15). 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). 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 undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand be granted, and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to “sentence four” of section 405(g). The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely written 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 2nd day of October 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE