Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARY PIERRE o/b/o JOHN
CLARK, JR.
VERSUS
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
*
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-2557 DIV. (2)
MAG. J. CURRAULT
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Mary Pierre filed this suit seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) denying John Clark, Jr., Supplemental Social Security Income under Title XVI and
Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and the unanimous consent of the parties, the matter was referred to a magistrate
judge for disposition. ECF No. 13.
Pending before me is the Commissioner’s Unopposed Ex Parte/Consent Motion for Entry
of Judgment and Remand. ECF No. 10. For the reasons below, the motion is granted, the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further
administrative proceedings in accordance with sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judgment
dismissing this case will be entered accordingly.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2022, John Clark, Jr., filed an application for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) Title XVI of the Social Security Act and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II
and Part A of Title XVIII of the Act, with disability beginning September 1, 2021. ECF No. 8,
Admin. Rec. at 433-44.
Case 2:25-cv-02557-DPC Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Commissioner denied the claims for benefits on December 21, 2022. 	Id. at 86-87.
Clark requested reconsideration of that decision, and on December 29, 2023, the hearing officer
denied the applications on reconsideration. Id. at 116-17. Clark then requested a hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge, which was conducted before ALJ Jim Frasier, who issued an
unfavorable decision. 	Id. at 21-39. 	After the Appeals Council denied review on November 3,
2025, (id. at 1-4), Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
and 1383(c)(3) of the Commissioner’s final decision.1
This Court issued a Briefing Schedule on March 3, 2026. 	ECF No. 11. However, after
filing its Answer and Record of Proceedings, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Judgment
and Remand pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to allow the Commissioner to
conduct a new administrative hearing and decision. ECF No. 10. The Commissioner’s Motion
denotes that the relief sought is unopposed.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Section 405(g) permits only two types of remand orders: “(1) remands pursuant to the fourth
sentence, and (2) remands pursuant to the sixth sentence.”2 In this case, Defendant seeks remand
under sentence four, which 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,
based on the pleadings and transcript of the record.3
Reversal of the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further proceedings is appropriate
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) when the record is insufficient to support the
1 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 416(i), 423.
2 Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (citation omitted).
3 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Case 2:25-cv-02557-DPC Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Commissioner’s conclusions and further fact-finding is necessary.4 	A sentence four remand
requires the district court to enter a decision on the merits before remanding a case to the
Commissioner.5 Thus, a request to remand for further administrative proceedings, like the remand
requested in the Commissioner’s motion, is a sentence four remand under section 405(g) and
requires that the court enter a decision.6
The Commissioner’s motion apparently, though not expressly, concedes that substantial
evidence in the record is lacking at this time to uphold the decision when he asks that the court
enter judgment and remand so that further proceedings may be conducted. 	ECF No. 10 at 2.
Accordingly, it appears that good cause exists to support reversal of the decision and to remand
this case.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record, the submissions, and applicable law, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) be
GRANTED, 	and 	judgment 	be 	entered 	REVERSING 	the 	Commissioner's 	decision 	and
REMANDING the case for further administrative proceedings.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ______ day of March, 2026.
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297-98 (1993) (stating that a district court remanding a
case pursuant to sentence four of Social Security Act must enter judgment either affirming, reversing or modifying
the decision of the Commissioner); Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 625-26 (1990).
5 Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98.
6 See Sullivan, 496 U.S. at 625-26 (sentence four provides the appropriate relief when the evidence on the record does
not support the Commissioner's conclusions and further fact finding is necessary).
23rd
Case 2:25-cv-02557-DPC Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3