Application for disability benefits; Remand under 42 USC § 405(g); “Sentence Four Remand”; Whether the district court was required to reach the merits of the complaint before remanding to the administrative law judge (ALJ) under Sentence Four; Whether the district court’s decision should be vacated; Clinkscale v Commissioner of Soc Sec (3d Cir); Melkonyan v Sullivan; Social Security Administration (SSA)

The court vacated the district court’s remand order, holding that a district court cannot remand a case to the SSA under Sentence Four of § 405(g) without explicitly affirming, modifying, or reversing the ALJ’s decision to deny a claimant benefits. Plaintiff-Follen was denied Social Security disability benefits and sought review in the district court. After answering the complaint, defendant-Commissioner determined that a remand to the ALJ was necessary for further explanation and reasoning. Follen agreed with a remand but requested that the ALJ be instructed to award benefits rather than reconsider the evidence. The district court granted the Commissioner’s motion, invoking Sentence Four of § 405(g). It did not “say that the ALJ committed reversible error, nor did it affirm or modify the denial of benefits.” Follen appealed. Sentence Four provides that “the district court can ‘enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.’” This is known as a “Sentence Four Remand.” The court explained that to issue a Sentence Four Remand, the district court must have reached a decision “on the merits of the claimant’s request for disability benefits.” In this case, the district court “expressly reserved ruling on the merits of the ALJ’s decision[.]” Following the Supreme Court’s approach in Melkonyan, as other circuits have done, it reviewed the district court’s “order for compliance with Sentences Four and Six.” Thus, it reviewed the district court’s “conclusion that factual disputes require remanding to the SSA” because this decision hinged “on its compliance with Sentences Four or Six.” The court determined “that the district court erred in issuing the remand order that it did. The remand order does not comply with Sentence Six because it does not include the predicate findings that Sentence Six requires. It does not comply with Sentence Four, at least as written, because it does not include a final judgment identifying a merits defect in the ALJ’s analysis. And the district court cannot issue remand orders outside the bounds of Sentences Four and Six.” Thus, the court found it must vacate the remand order and remand for the district court to clarify “what it is doing under § 405(g).”