Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00705/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00705-0/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 (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cynthia Diann Gomez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 11-705-TUC-LAB

ORDER

Pending before the court are the defendant’s motion to withdraw his answer (Doc. 24)

and his motion to remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 25).

The magistrate judge presides over this action having received written consent from both

parties. Good cause appearing, the motions will be granted.

Discussion

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(b) and 1383(c)(3). (Doc. 1) The defendant filed

his answer and, shortly thereafter, the administrative record as required by statute. (Docs. 15,

16); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“As part of the Commissioner’s answer the Commissioner of Social

Security shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon

which the findings and decision complained of are based.).

Case 4:11-cv-00705-LAB Document 29 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

On April 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed her opening brief. (Doc. 17) The defendant

subsequently filed two motions to extend the deadline for filing a responsive brief, which were

granted by this court. On July 13, 2012, the defendant filed the two instant motions to withdraw

his answer and remand pursuant to sentence six. (Docs. 24, 25)

Apparently, the defendant discovered that the administrative record is not complete.

(Doc. 24) When the case was before the Appeals Council, the plaintiff supplemented the record

with 97 pages of additional documents. Id. The Appeals Council considered those documents,

but denied review. Id. The Appeals Council then, unfortunately, deleted those additional

documents. Id. The administrative record submitted by the Commissioner pursuant to statute

does not contain those supplementary documents and is therefore incomplete. Id. The plaintiff

has produced a copy of the documents she sent to the Appeals Council, but that body is

unwilling to certify that those documents are the same ones that were originally submitted and

considered. Id. 

The first section of sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that, 

The 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 . . . .

This section of sentence six may be used to remand the case where the administrative record is

incomplete. See Davis v. Astrue 2008 WL 4582498, 1 (E.D.Cal. 2008); Acevedo v. Barnhart,

474 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1004 (E.D.Wis. 2007). Accordingly, the defendant moves pursuant to

sentence six that this case be remanded to allow the Appeals Council to consider, anew, the

supplementary documents provided by the plaintiff and evaluate again the plaintiff’s petition

for review. (Docs. 24, 25)

This sentence six remand, however, is only available “before the Commissioner files the

Commissioner’s answer.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Accordingly, the defendant moves that he be

allowed to withdraw his answer. (Doc. 24)

Gomez argues that once the Commissioner’s answer has been filed, remand is not

available under the sentence six clause cited by the Commissioner. (Docs. 26, 27) She does

Case 4:11-cv-00705-LAB Document 29 Filed 10/10/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

not specifically discuss whether or not it is possible for a defendant to withdraw a previously

filed answer. Id. She suggests that the Commissioner could simply file a supplement to the

administrative record, but she does not address the Appeals Council’s apparent reluctance to do

so.

The court finds that, in the interest of justice, the Commissioner should be allowed to

withdraw his answer and move to remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The

court has the inherent authority to permit a defendant to withdraw his answer and plead anew.

Eberly v. Moore, 65 U.S. 147, 158, 1860 WL 9942, 8 (1860); Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183

F. 704, 710 (3rd Cir. 1910). And in this case, “the interests of the parties and the speedy

administration of justice” are both furthered by permitting him to do so. Loeb, 183 F. at 710;

see also Fed.R.Civ.P 1. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s motion to withdraw his answer will

be granted.

With his answer withdrawn, the Commissioner is free to move for remand pursuant to

sentence six, and good cause appearing, the court will grant the motion. See Davis v. Astrue

2008 WL 4582498, 1 (E.D.Cal. 2008) (“Good cause is shown where, for example, there are

problems including an inaudible or lost tape recording of an administrative hearing.”); Acevedo

v. Barnhart, 474 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1004 (E.D.Wis. 2007) (“[I]t is clear that the Commissioner’s

inability to file a complete administrative record constitutes good cause for a sentence six

remand . . . ). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to withdraw his answer (Doc. 24) and his

motion to remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 25) are both

GRANTED. The Commissioner’s answer is withdrawn (Doc. 15), and this matter is remanded

to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

DATED this 9th day of October, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00705-LAB Document 29 Filed 10/10/12 Page 3 of 3