Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_16-cv-00105/USCOURTS-ared-3_16-cv-00105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

MELISSA FOSTER PLAINTIFF 

V. CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00105-SWW-JTK 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court 

Judge Susan Webber Wright. The parties may file specific objections to these findings and 

recommendations and must provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. The objections 

must be filed with the Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and 

recommendations. A copy must be served on the opposing party. The District Judge, even in the 

absence of objections, may reject these proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in 

part. 

DISPOSITION 

 Pending before the Court is the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s 

(Commissioner) Motion to Reverse and Remand pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). (DE #16) The Commissioner request for this Court to remand the entirety of the case to 

allow it to conduct further proceedings. 

Procedural History 

 On August 22, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Plaintiff disabled as of 

September 30, 2012. (Tr. 20-24) Within the same decision, however, the ALJ found that a 

Case 3:16-cv-00105-SWW Document 21 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 3
medical improvement occurred as of October 1, 2013, and Plaintiff’s impairments were no longer 

disabling; therefore, her disability ended as of October 1, 2013. (Tr. 30-32) 

On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed her complaint with this Court appealing the 

Commissioner’s decision denying her claim. (DE # 2) The issues Plaintiff presented on review 

were as follows: (1) the ALJ improperly developed the record after the period of disability; (2) 

the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff can perform work in the national economy after the period 

of disability is unsupported by substantial evidence; and (3) that the administrative record is 

incomplete. (DE #12) Plaintiff noted in her brief that she was not challenging the favorable 

portion of the ALJ’s decision stating that “it is not before the Court for judicial review.” (DE #12) 

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion to Reverse and Remand the entirety of 

the case including the favorable and unfavorable portions of the ALJ’s decision. (DE # 16) 

Specifically, the Commissioner states that “the Appeals Council will instruct the administrative 

law judge (ALJ) to obtain medical evidence; reconsider the residual functional capacities in the 

favorable and unfavorable portions of the decision; re-evaluate medical improvement, if necessary; 

obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to determine whether Plaintiff has acquired 

any skills that are transferable to other occupations; and if warranted, clarify the effect of the 

assessed limitations on Plaintiff’s occupational base.” Id. 

Plaintiff filed her Response on November 7, 2016, in partial opposition to the 

Commissioner’s motion to remand, stating that the Court should “reject as illegitimate the 

agency’s present contention that Foster’s disability between September 30, 2012 and October 1, 

2013 is either not established or that it was adjudicated in error.” (DE # 20) Furthermore, the 

Plaintiff argues that this Court is limited to reviewing the ALJ’s finding after October 1, 2013, that 

Plaintiff can engage in substantial gainful activity. Id. This Court agrees. 

Case 3:16-cv-00105-SWW Document 21 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 3
Discussion 

 Defendant argues that authority for its motion is found in sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). (DE #16 at 2-3) 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 the Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a 

rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While, the Defendant is correct that the Court’s authority to 

remand a case is found within that particular statute, the Commissioner fails to cite any basis for 

this Court to disrupt the ALJ’s finding of disability during the period of September 30, 2012, 

through October 1, 2013, or provide any reasoning as to why the favorable portion of the decision 

should not be upheld. Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit has ruled that when an award of disability 

benefits is for a closed period of time, review is limited to determining whether the decision that 

the claimant is capable of performing gainful work after a specified date is supported by substantial 

evidence on the record as a whole. Ness v. Sullivan, 904 F.2d 432, 435 (8th Cir. 1990). 

 The Plaintiff specifically stated within her brief that she was not challenging the favorable 

portion of the ALJ’s decision; therefore, based upon the fact that the closed period of disability is 

not an issue on appeal, as well as Eighth Circuit law, it is recommended that this Court grant 

Defendant’s Motion to Remand for further administrative proceedings limited to the period of 

October 2, 2013, and beyond. 

IT SO ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2016. 

    __________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTATE JUDGE 

 

Case 3:16-cv-00105-SWW Document 21 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 3