Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_11-cv-00569/USCOURTS-alsd-2_11-cv-00569-0/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)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

ASHLEY THOMAS, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00569-KD-B 

 * 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, * 

Commissioner of Social Security,* 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion 

to Remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 12). 

This Motion has been referred to the undersigned for a report and 

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

72.2(c)(3). Upon consideration of all matters presented, the 

undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED, and that 

this action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for 

further administrative action. 

According to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), “[t]he court may, on motion of 

the Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause shown before 

the Commissioner files the Commissioner’s answer, remand the case 

to the Commissioner of Social Security for further action by the 

Commissioner of Social Security[.]” 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g). In his 

Case 2:11-cv-00569-B Document 13 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 6
2

motion, the Commissioner seeks remand because the claim file, the 

Administrative Law Judge’s decision, and the recording of 

Plaintiff’s administrative hearing cannot be located. The 

Commissioner requests that this case be remanded to the Appeals 

Council so that the Appeals Council can review any materials 

submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel to determine if the file is 

complete, or if the file cannot be completed, the Appeals Council 

will remand the case to an ALJ to reconstruct the administrative 

record, hold another administrative hearing, and issue a decision. 

(Doc. 12 at 1-2). 

The three components of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), which are pertinent 

to this matter, must be satisfied before this Court can consider a 

remand: namely, there must be 1) a motion by the Commissioner; 2) 

made for good cause shown; and 3) before the filing of an answer. 

In this case, the instant motion was filed before any answer by the 

Commissioner; thus, the only issue before the Court is whether the 

Commissioner has demonstrated good cause. The legislative history 

of the Joint Conference Committee of Congress in reporting upon the 

Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, reflects that the 

Committee discussed situations which may constitute “good cause” for 

remand and observed that: 

Where, for example, the tape recording of the claimant’s 

oral hearing is lost or inaudible, or cannot otherwise be 

transcribed, or where the claimant’s files cannot be 

Case 2:11-cv-00569-B Document 13 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 6
3

located or are incomplete, good cause would exist to remand 

the claim to the [Commissioner] for appropriate action to 

produce a record . . . . 

H.R. Rep. No. 96-944, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1980). 

Here, the Commissioner’s pre-answer concession that this case 

should be remanded to allow the Appeals Council to locate or 

reconstruct the claim file, the ALJ’s decision, and the recording 

of Plaintiff’s administrative hearing, or to remand the case to an 

ALJ to reconstruct the administrative record and hold a new hearing 

constitutes good cause to remand this case to the Commissioner for 

further proceedings. See, e.g., Gamble v. Apfel, 2001 WL 102344 

(S.D. Ala. Jan. 5, 2001); Patt v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14102,

*2-3 (S.D. Ala. Jun. 22, 1999). 

In entering sentence six remands, the courts “[do] not rule in 

any way as to the correctness of the administrative determination.” 

Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98, 111 S. Ct. 2157, 2163, 115 

L. Ed. 2d 78 (1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff is not a prevailing 

party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 28 

U.S.C. ' 2412. See Shalala v. Schafer, 509 U.S. 292, 297-298 and 

300-302, 113 S. Ct. at 2629 and 2631-2632 (1993); Melkonyan, 501 U.S. 

at 102, 111 S. Ct. at 2165 (holding that “[i]n sentence six cases, 

the [EAJA] filing period does not begin until after the postremand 

proceedings are completed, the [Commissioner] returns to court, the 

court enters a final judgment, and the appeal period runs[]”). 

Case 2:11-cv-00569-B Document 13 Filed 12/21/11 Page 3 of 6
4

Wherefore, upon consideration of all matters presented, and for 

good cause shown, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that 

Defendant=s Motion to Remand be GRANTED and this cause remanded to 

the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) for 

action consistent with Defendant’s Motion to Remand. 

 The attached sheet contains important information regarding 

objections to this Report and Recommendation. 

DONE this 20th day of December, 2011.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00569-B Document 13 Filed 12/21/11 Page 4 of 6
MAGISTRATE JUDGE=S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS 

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION 

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen days of the date of service of 

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of 

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the 

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an 

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. 

See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)8); and Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 

(11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and 

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail 

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part: 

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a 

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a 

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a 

AStatement of Objection to Magistrate Judge=s 

Recommendation@ within ten days1 after being served with 

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is 

established by order. The statement of objection shall 

specify those portions of the recommendation to which 

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The 

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the 

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the 

party=s arguments that the magistrate judge=s 

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different 

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a 

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate 

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be 

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief 

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief 

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment 

of the objection. 

A magistrate judge=s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court 

of Appeals; only the district judge=s order or judgment can be 

appealed. 

2. Opposing party=s response to the objection. Any opposing party 

may submit a brief opposing the objection within fourteen (14) days 

 

1

 The Court’s Local Rules are being amended to reflect the new 

computations of time as set out in the amendments to the Federal Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, effective December 1, 2009. 

Case 2:11-cv-00569-B Document 13 Filed 12/21/11 Page 5 of 6
of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate 

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are 

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to 

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is 

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is 

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of 

the transcript.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00569-B Document 13 Filed 12/21/11 Page 6 of 6