Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 311.0

524us1$86Z 02-17-99 18:23:51 PAGES OPINPGT

266

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

FORNEY v. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit

No. 97–5737. Argued April 22, 1998—Decided June 15, 1998

Petitioner Forney sought judicial review of a Social Security Administra-
tion ﬁnal determination denying her disability beneﬁts. When the Dis-
trict Court found that determination inadequately supported by the evi-
dence and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U. S. C. § 405(g), Forney appealed, con-
tending that the agency’s denial of beneﬁts should be reversed outright.
The Ninth Circuit, however, decided that she did not have the legal
right to appeal. Before this Court, both Forney and the Solicitor Gen-
eral agree that she had the right to appeal, so an amicus has been
appointed to defend the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Held: A Social Security disability claimant seeking court reversal of an
agency decision denying beneﬁts may appeal a district court order re-
manding the case to the agency for further proceedings pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U. S. C. § 405(g). This Court has previously held
that the language of the Social Security Act’s “judicial review” provi-
sion—“district courts” (reviewing, for example, agency denials of dis-
ability claims) “have the power to enter . . . a judgment afﬁrming, modi-
fying or reversing [an agency] decision . . . with or without remanding
the cause for a rehearing,” and such “judgment . . . shall be ﬁnal except
that it shall be subject to review in the same manner as” other civil
action judgments, 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (emphases added)—means that a
district court order remanding a Social Security disability claim to the
agency for further proceedings is a “ﬁnal judgment” appealable under
28 U. S. C. § 1291. Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617. Finkelstein
differs from this case in that it involved an appeal by the Government.
However, Finkelstein’s logic makes that feature irrelevant here. That
case reasoned, primarily from § 405(g)’s language, that a district court
judgment remanding a Social Security disability case fell within the
“class of orders” that are appealable under § 1291. Neither the statute
nor Finkelstein suggests that such an order could be ﬁnal for purposes
of an appeal by the Government, but not a claimant, or permits an infer-
ence that ﬁnality turns on the order’s importance, or the availability
of an avenue for appeal from the agency determination that might
emerge after remand. The Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that For-