Opinion ID: 4546078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentence-Four Remand

Text: Sentence four of section 405(g) authorizes the district court “to 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To remand under sentence four, “the district court must either find that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence, or that the Commissioner (or the ALJ) incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996). A sentence-four remand order must “accompany a final judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the administrative decision.” Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1991). On appeal, Reeves argues that the district court committed a legal error by assuming that the court lacked authority to remand under sentence four absent a final judgment. We disagree. In denying Reeves’s motion for a remand under sentence four, the district court said these words: “Reeves asks the Court to remand 5 Case: 19-14575 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 6 of 8 before reaching a substantive decision, so sentence four does not provide a vehicle for remand.” The district court’s statement -- that a sentence-four remand is unavailable without a substantive decision on the merits -- is correct as a matter of law. See id. Reeves also asserts that she in fact sought a sentence-four remand in conjunction with a substantive ruling on the ALJ’s denial of benefits. To the extent the district court misconstrued the relief sought by Reeves, however, Reeves has still failed to establish that a sentence-four remand was warranted in this case. The district court addressed the merits of Reeves’s arguments challenging the ALJ’s 2017 decision. The district court determined that the ALJ’s 2017 decision was supported by substantial evidence: a determination Reeves has not challenged on appeal. Nor has Reeves (in the district court or in this Court) contended that the ALJ or the Commissioner applied incorrectly the applicable law. Absent a conclusion that the ALJ’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or that the ALJ applied incorrectly the law, Reeves was unentitled to a sentence-four remand. See Jackson, 99 F.3d at 1092. 6 Case: 19-14575 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 7 of 8