Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 313

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

268

FORNEY v. APFEL

Opinion of the Court

onset of her medical problem, and (2) that she was more than
minimally disabled, but (3) that she was not disabled enough
to qualify for beneﬁts automatically. Moreover, her disabil-
ity, (4) while sufﬁciently serious to prevent her return to her
former work (cook, kitchen manager, or baker), (5) was not
serious enough to prevent her from holding other jobs avail-
able in the economy (such as order clerk or telephone an-
swering service operator). App. 12–28. The ALJ conse-
id., at 28, and the
quently denied her disability claim,
Administration’s Appeals Council denied Forney’s request
for review, App. to Pet. for Cert. 39–40; see generally Bowen
v. Yuckert, 482 U. S. 137, 140–142 (1987) (setting forth ﬁve-
part “disability” test); 20 CFR § 404.1520 (1997) (same).

Forney then sought judicial review in Federal District
Court. The court found the agency’s ﬁnal determination—
that Forney could hold other jobs—inadequately supported
because those jobs “require frequent or constant reaching,”
but the record showed that Forney’s “ability to reach is
impaired.” Forney v. Secretary, Civ. No. 94–6357 (D. Ore.,
May 1, 1995); App. 127–128. The District Court then en-
tered a judgment, which remanded the case to the agency for
further proceedings (pursuant to sentence four of 42 U. S. C.
§ 405(g)).

Id., at 128.

Forney sought to appeal the remand order. She con-
tended that, because the agency had already had sufﬁcient
opportunity to prove the existence of other relevant employ-
ment (and for other reasons), its denial of beneﬁts should
be reversed outright. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit did not hear her claim, however, for it decided
that Forney did not have the legal right to appeal. Forney
v. Chater, 108 F. 3d 228, 234 (1997).

Forney sought certiorari. Both she and the Solicitor Gen-
eral agreed that Forney had the legal right to appeal from
the District Court’s judgment. The Solicitor General sug-
gested that we reverse the Ninth Circuit and remand the
case so that it could hear Forney’s appeal. We granted cer-