Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01080/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01080-0/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)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

T.C. MATHIS, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 05-1080

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff T.C. Mathis, Jr., brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking

judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(Commissioner) denying his application for period of disability and disabilityinsurance benefits

(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI ) benefits under the provisions ofTitles II and XVI

of the Social Security Act. (Doc. # 1). The defendant filed an Answer to plaintiff's action on

November 16, 2005, asserting that the findings of the Commissioner were supported by

substantial evidence and were conclusive. (Doc. # 4). Plaintiff filed an appeal brief on December

12, 2005. (Doc. # 7).

On January 6, 2006, the Commissioner, having changed positions, filed a motion

requesting that plaintiff's case be remanded pursuant to "sentence four" of section 405(g) in order

to conduct further administrative proceedings. (Doc. # 8). The defendant states that upon

remand, the ALJ will be instructed to obtain a full description of all of plaintiff’s past relevant

work and compare the functional demands of plaintiff’s past relevant work with plaintiff’s

established residual functional capacity (RFC). If necessary, the ALJ will also obtain evidence

Case 1:05-cv-01080-BSJ Document 12 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

from a vocational expert establishing whether plaintiff retains the RFC to perform his past

relevant work as he performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy or

whether there are other jobs existing in significant numbers which plaintiff can perform

considering his age, education, past work experience and RFC.

The exclusive methods by which a district court may remand a social security case to the

Commissioner are set forth in "sentence four" and "sentence six" of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A

remand pursuant to "sentence six" is limited to two situations: where the Commissioner requests

a remand before answering the complaint, or where the court orders the Commissioner to

consider new, material evidence that was for good cause not presented before the agency. The

Fourth sentence of the statute 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."

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296, 113 S.Ct. 2625 (1993).

Here, we find remand for the purpose of the ALJ to further evaluate the evidence as

addressed above, appropriate. 

Based on the foregoing, we find remand appropriate and grant the Commissioner's

motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to

"sentence four" of section 405(g). 

DATED this 14 day of February 2006. th

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01080-BSJ Document 12 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>