Legal Definitions - sixth-sentence remand

A sixth-sentence remand refers to a specific type of order issued by a federal court in cases involving appeals of decisions made by the Social Security Administration (or similar federal agencies). When an individual appeals a denial of federal benefits, the court reviews the agency's decision to determine if it is supported by sufficient evidence and if the agency applied the correct legal standards.

If the court finds that the agency's decision is not supported by adequate evidence, or if the agency made a legal error, the court can send the case back to the agency for further action. This particular type of remand is called "sixth-sentence" because it is authorized by the sixth sentence of a specific federal law (42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). A crucial characteristic of a sixth-sentence remand is that the court retains its authority over the case while the agency reconsiders it. This allows the court to oversee the agency's further proceedings, ensuring that the identified issues are properly addressed and that a new decision is made, which the court can then review again if necessary.

• Example 1: Inadequate Consideration of Medical Evidence

  A claimant applied for Social Security disability benefits due to a debilitating heart condition. Their treating cardiologist provided extensive medical records and a detailed opinion stating the claimant was unable to perform any work. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, stating the doctor's opinion was inconsistent with other evidence, but failed to provide a specific, detailed explanation for discounting the treating physician's strong opinion.

  The federal court reviewed the case and determined that the ALJ did not adequately explain why they rejected the treating physician's opinion. This constituted a lack of substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision. The court issued a sixth-sentence remand, sending the case back to the Social Security Administration. The court instructed the agency to reconsider the treating physician's opinion, provide a proper explanation if it was discounted, and potentially obtain additional medical opinions. The court retained jurisdiction over the case, meaning it would await the agency's new decision and could review it again if the claimant appealed the new decision.

• Example 2: Legal Error in Vocational Assessment

  A claimant with a severe mental health condition was denied disability benefits. The ALJ's decision concluded that the claimant could perform "light work" based on a vocational expert's testimony. However, the federal court discovered that the vocational expert's testimony was based on a hypothetical question that did not fully incorporate all of the claimant's documented mental limitations, such as frequent absences from work due to panic attacks or difficulty concentrating for extended periods.

  The federal court found that the ALJ's decision contained a legal error because the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert did not accurately reflect the claimant's established limitations, leading to an unreliable vocational assessment. The court issued a sixth-sentence remand, sending the case back to the Social Security Administration. The court directed the agency to hold a new hearing, pose a revised hypothetical question to a vocational expert that accurately reflects all of the claimant's limitations, and then issue a new decision. The court retained jurisdiction to ensure this process was correctly followed and to review the subsequent agency decision.

• Example 3: Failure to Develop the Record

  A claimant applied for disability benefits for a complex autoimmune disorder. The medical records were somewhat sparse because the claimant had difficulty accessing consistent healthcare due to financial hardship. The ALJ denied benefits, stating there wasn't enough objective medical evidence to support the severity of the condition.

  The federal court reviewed the case and determined that the ALJ had an affirmative duty to further develop the medical record, especially given the claimant's reported difficulties in obtaining consistent treatment. The court found that the agency failed to gather all necessary evidence before making a decision. The court issued a sixth-sentence remand, sending the case back to the Social Security Administration. The court ordered the agency to obtain additional medical records, potentially send the claimant for a consultative examination, and then re-evaluate the claim based on a more complete record. The court retained jurisdiction over the case, allowing it to monitor the agency's efforts to develop the record and review the final outcome.