Hashaway v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TYKESHIA D. HASHAWAY, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-1296-BP
§
COMMISSIONER OF 	§
SOCIAL SECURITY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Reverse and Remand filed December 10, 2025.
ECF No. 19. Defendant seeks a remand pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
After reviewing the Motion, Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-Opposition (ECF No. 21), and the relevant
legal authorities, the Court GRANTS the Motion, REVERSES this case, and REMANDS it to
the Commissioner for further administrative action.
In Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 97-102 (1991), the Supreme Court made clear that
there are only two types of remand orders permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The first method
arises under “[t]he fourth sentence of § 405(g) [that] authorizes a court to enter ‘a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without remanding
the cause for a rehearing.’” Id. at 98 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). A sentence four remand “requires
the district court to enter a decision on the merits before remanding a case to the Commissioner.”
Schriner v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:08-CV-2042-N, 2010 WL 2941120, at *15 (N.D.
Tex. June 22, 2010), rec. adopted, 2010 WL 2944782 (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2010) (citing Melkonyan,
501 U.S. at 98).
Case 3:25-cv-01296-BP Document 22 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
The second method arises under the sixth sentence of § 405(g) and “may be ordered in only
two situations: where the [Commissioner] requests a remand before answering the complaint, or
where new, material evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before the agency.”
Shalala v. Shaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 n.2 (1993) (citing § 405(g); Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 99–
100). Under sentence six, “[t]he district court does not . . . rule in any way as to the correctness of
the administrative determination. Rather, the court remands” the case for reconsideration if the
“new evidence might have changed the outcome of the prior proceeding.” Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at
98; see also McKenzie v. Astrue, 442 F. App’x 161, 162 (5th Cir. 2011). The “[i]mmediate entry
of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after post-remand agency proceedings have been
completed and their results filed with the court) is the principal feature that distinguishes a
sentence-four remand from a sentence-six remand.” Chelette v. United States Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 1:11-CV-1860, 2012 WL 2870842, at *2 (W.D. La. June 12, 2012), rec. adopted, 2012 WL
2873635 (W.D. La. July 12, 2012) (citing Shaefer, 509 U.S. at 296–97 and Istre v. Apfel, 208 F.3d
517, 520 (5th Cir. 2000)).
Here, the Commissioner seeks to remand the case to conduct further administrative
proceedings. ECF No. 19 at 1. Specifically:
Upon 	remand, 	SSA’s 	Appeals 	Council 	will 	direct 	the
Administrative Law Judge to obtain supplemental vocational expert
evidence to evaluate whether the claimant is capable of performing
other work exists in the national economy in significant numbers
that is compatible with the claimant’s residual functional capacity.
The 	Administrative 	Law 	Judge 	will 	offer 	the 	claimant 	the
opportunity for a hearing, take any further action needed to complete
the administrative record, and issue a new decision.
Id. The Supreme Court has explained that a Sentence Four remand is appropriate when “the
evidence on the record was insufficient to support the Secretary’s conclusion and that further
Case 3:25-cv-01296-BP Document 22 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
factfinding regarding respondent’s ailment was necessary.” Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617,
626 (1990).
The quoted language above indicates that the record is insufficient in the way contemplated
by the Supreme Court in Sullivan, making remand under Sentence Four appropriate. Sentence Six
is not applicable here because it is not clear to the Court that any missing aspects of the
administrative record would involve “evidence not in existence or available to the claimant at the
time of the administrative proceeding that might have changed the outcome of the proceeding.”
Id. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s request for remand. ECF No. 21.
Having carefully considered Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 19), Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-
Opposition (ECF No. 21), and the applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS the Motion,
REVERSES this case, and REMANDS it to the Commissioner for further administrative action.
It is so ORDERED on January 2, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01296-BP Document 22 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>