Reported / Citable
Background
Kristopher Bazan sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after the Commissioner of Social Security denied his application for supplemental security income benefits. Bazan filed his opening brief in the case.
The Commissioner then moved, without opposition, to reverse the benefits denial and remand the matter for further administrative consideration. The Commissioner had already filed an answer, and Bazan did not seek consideration of new evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton recommended granting the Commissioner’s unopposed motion. She concluded that a sentence-four remand under § 405(g), rather than a sentence-six remand, was the appropriate mechanism.
Under sentence four, the court may enter judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision, with or without a remand for rehearing. Because the Commissioner had answered and no new-evidence request was pending, the magistrate judge recommended reversing the denial, remanding for further consideration, and entering final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation would reverse the SSI denial and return the case to the Social Security Administration.
- The proposed remand is under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Parties had 14 days to file objections to the memorandum and recommendation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural distinction between sentence-four and sentence-six Social Security remands. A sentence-four remand follows a court judgment reversing or modifying the agency decision, while sentence six is reserved for specified circumstances, including certain pre-answer agency motions or material new evidence.