Richard C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Alabama

Richard C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 14, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-00566

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Richard C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Ala. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD C., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-566-SMD ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social Security,1 ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On January 13, 2026, the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. Comm’r’s Mot. (Doc. 14). The Commissioner requests that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand this case for further consideration and administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Id. p. 1. Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court 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). The district court may remand a case to the Commissioner for a rehearing if the court finds “either . . . the decision is not supported by substantial

1 Plaintiff’s complaint named Bisignano as “Acting” Commissioner of Social Security. Because Bisignano is the Commissioner of Social Security, and not the Acting Commissioner, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to restyle the case to reflect this distinction. evidence, or. . . the Commissioner or the ALJ incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996). In this case, the Court finds reversal and remand necessary as the Commissioner concedes reconsideration and further administrative actions are necessary. Further, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 14) is GRANTED and that the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) consistent with the Commissioner’s motion. Further, it is ORDERED that, in accordance with Bergen v. Comm of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1278 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006), Plaintiff shall have ninety (90) days after he receives notice of any amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C.§ 406(b). See also Blitch v. Astrue, 261 F. App’x 241, 241 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). A separate judgment will issue. Done this 14th day of January, 2026.

Stephen Doyle CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE 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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD C., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-566-SMD ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social Security,1 ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On January 13, 2026, the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. Comm’r’s Mot. (Doc. 14). The Commissioner requests that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand this case for further consideration and administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Id. p. 1. Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court 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). The district court may remand a case to the Commissioner for a rehearing if the court finds “either . . . the decision is not supported by substantial

1 Plaintiff’s complaint named Bisignano as “Acting” Commissioner of Social Security. Because Bisignano is the Commissioner of Social Security, and not the Acting Commissioner, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to restyle the case to reflect this distinction. evidence, or. . . the Commissioner or the ALJ incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996). In this case, the Court finds reversal and remand necessary as the Commissioner concedes reconsideration and further administrative actions are necessary. Further, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand (Doc. 14) is GRANTED and that the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) consistent with the Commissioner’s motion. Further, it is ORDERED that, in accordance with Bergen v. Comm of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1278 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006), Plaintiff shall have ninety (90) days after he receives notice of any amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C.§ 406(b). See also Blitch v. Astrue, 261 F. App’x 241, 241 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). A separate judgment will issue. Done this 14th day of January, 2026.

Stephen Doyle CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richard C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-c-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-almd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack