Solar v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02893
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DEBORAH SOLER CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 24-2893

FRANK BISIGNANO, SECTION: D(3) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation1 from the United States Magistrate Judge on the Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand filed by Defendant Social Security Administration (“SSA”).2 Plaintiff Deborah Soler does not oppose the Motion. After careful consideration of Defendant’s Motion, the record, the applicable law, and the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this suit for judicial review of an administrative decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability benefits for lack of disability.3 In her Complaint, Plaintiff requests an order finding that she is entitled to the benefits she seeks or an order remanding this case for a further hearing.4 In the instant Motion, which

1 R. Doc. 10. 2 R. Doc. 9. 3 R. Doc. 1 at p. 1. 4 Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff consents to, Defendant seeks to remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).5 II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Sentence four of Section 405(g) 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.”6 A sentence four remand requires entry of a judgment.7 Here, Defendant requests reversal and remand to the Commissioner for

“further administrative proceedings.”8 Defendant advises that it has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff who stated that Plaintiff has no objection to the relief sought in the motion.9 District courts possess “wide discretion” to remand a case to the SSA for further proceedings, especially when there are “important and unresolved aspects of [the plaintiff]’s claim [that] should first be addressed by the administrative law judge.”10 This request is equivalent to the need for further factfinding. Moreover, “[t]he Supreme Court has noted that a remand for further administrative

proceedings, such as the requested remand in the instant case, is a sentence four remand.”11 After a careful independent review of the record in this matter, the Court

5 R. Doc. 9. 6 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 7 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993). 8 R. Doc. 9 at ¶ 1-2. 9 Id. at ¶ 3. 10 Davis v. Colvin, 603 F. App’x 257, 258 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). 11 Fitzgerald v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-148, 2022 WL 1037461, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 1028074 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2022) (citing Shalada, 509 U.S. at 298). finds that the requirements of sentence four of Section 405(g) have been met and that it is appropriate to remand this matter. Upon its independent review of the record, the Court finds—in agreement with the Magistrate Judge—that the record currently before the Court “remains insufficient to support the SSA’s final decision denying Plaintiffs applications for social security benefits.”!2 Because the record is insufficient to support the denial, further factfinding is not only appropriate but also necessary. HiIl. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation!? as its opinion in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand!4 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Court will enter a separate judgment. New Orleans, Louisiana, September 4, 2025.

WENDY B. ne United States District Judge 2 R, Doc. 9, at p. 2. 1 R. Doc. 10. MR, Doe. 9.