Maurice J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

D. North Dakota

Maurice J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

DecidedNovember 13, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00155

StatusUnknown

This text of Maurice J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Maurice J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. North Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maurice J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (D.N.D. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA EASTERN DIVISION Maurice J., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-155 v. ) ) ORDER Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) Plaintiff Maurice J. initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff Maurice J. filed a brief requesting reversal of the Commissioner’s final decision and remand for further consideration. Doc. 11. In response, the Commissioner moved for remand. Doc. 13. The Commissioner states Plaintiff does not oppose the Commissioner’s motion to remand. The Commissioner requests remand to conduct further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under sentence four of § 405(g), the Court can affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for rehearing. A sentence four remand is proper when the Court makes a substantive ruling regarding the correctness of the Commissioner’s decision and remands the case in accordance with such ruling. Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000). Here, the parties agree the evidence is insufficient to support the Commissioner’s findings and further proceedings are necessary. Remand under sentence four is therefore appropriate. It is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for remand (Doc. 13) and Plaintiff Maurice J.'s request for remand (Doc. 11) are GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2025. /s/ Peter D. Welte Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA EASTERN DIVISION Maurice J., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-155 v. ) ) ORDER Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) Plaintiff Maurice J. initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff Maurice J. filed a brief requesting reversal of the Commissioner’s final decision and remand for further consideration. Doc. 11. In response, the Commissioner moved for remand. Doc. 13. The Commissioner states Plaintiff does not oppose the Commissioner’s motion to remand. The Commissioner requests remand to conduct further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under sentence four of § 405(g), the Court can affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for rehearing. A sentence four remand is proper when the Court makes a substantive ruling regarding the correctness of the Commissioner’s decision and remands the case in accordance with such ruling. Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000). Here, the parties agree the evidence is insufficient to support the Commissioner’s findings and further proceedings are necessary. Remand under sentence four is therefore appropriate. It is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for remand (Doc. 13) and Plaintiff Maurice J.'s request for remand (Doc. 11) are GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2025. /s/ Peter D. Welte Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maurice J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-j-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-the-social-security-ndd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack