Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04084/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04084-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

DANNY HEBERT 0LAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4084

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending now on this 28 day of March, 2006, is the Defendant’s Motion to Remand th

filed by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter

“Commissioner”), on March 27, 2006 (Doc. #12). Plaintiff filed his Response on the same

date, offering no objection to the requested relief (Doc. #13). 

In the instant motion, the defendant asserts that remand of this matter is necessary to

enable her to conduct further administrative proceedings (Doc. #8, p. 1). Specifically, the

motion asserts:

The Commissioner seeks remand in order that the ALJ may conduct a proper

evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints pursuant to Polaski v. Heckler,

751 F.2d 943, 948 (8th Cir.1984), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and Social Security

Ruling (SSR) 96-7p. The ALJ will evaluated the Plaintiff’s subjective

complaints for the period in question, setting forth his consideration of each of

the factors discussed in Polaski, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and SSR 96-7p. The

ALJ will also obtain Medical Expert testimony from an orthopedist, and if

medical improvement is found, the ALJ will provide a proper rationale for

such finding and his residual functional capacity finding.

(Doc. #12, p. 1). 

Further, the defendant submits that the Court remand this matter pursuant to sentence

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. #12, p. 2). In his

Sentence four provides:

Case 4:05-cv-04084-BES Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of

the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the

[Commissioner], with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant’s motion requesting reversal of the

decision and remand of this matter for the above stated reasons, is well taken. The

Commissioner’s decision is reversed and this matter is hereby remanded, pursuant to sentence

four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings, as specifically set forth above and in the

Commissioner’s motion (Doc. #12). 

In addition, the undersigned finds that the plaintiff’s Complaint should be and hereby

is dismissed without prejudice to the subsequent filing for attorney’s fees, pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. A separate Judgment shall be entered herein

pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 58 and 52.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04084-BES Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>