Snell v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Opinion

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

TRACY SNELL PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 4:21-cv-04029

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, DEFENDANT Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has no objections to this Motion. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and recommendation. Defendant requests Plaintiff’s case be remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so the Commissioner can conduct further proceedings. ECF No. 18. Specifically, Defendant requests the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) further develop the record, obtain medical expert evidence, re-evaluate the opinion evidence of record, and reassess the residual functional capacity. The ALJ should also obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence to evaluate whether the claimant can perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy. The ALJ should offer the claimant the opportunity for a hearing; take any further actions necessary to complete the administrative record; and issue a new decision. Based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand (ECF No. 18) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s case be reversed and remanded to the Social Security Administration for further administrative review pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 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 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. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). ENTERED this 29th day of November 2021.

Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE