Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security — Remand to Administrative Law Judge Recommended

Reported / Citable

Background

Shelly D. Brown filed suit challenging an adverse decision by an Administrative Law Judge regarding Social Security disability benefits. The Commissioner of Social Security filed an unopposed motion to reverse the ALJ’s decision and remand the case for further administrative proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A magistrate judge considered the motion and recommended that it be granted.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to reverse and remand under the “fourth sentence” provision of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court explained that § 405(g) permits two distinct types of remand orders: a fourth-sentence remand, which requires the district court to enter a decision on the merits before remanding; and a sixth-sentence remand, which applies only when the Commissioner requests remand before answering the complaint or when new, material evidence surfaces that was not previously presented to the agency.

Because the Commissioner’s motion was unopposed and the plaintiff had not presented any new evidence that might change the administrative outcome, the court found a fourth-sentence remand appropriate. The magistrate judge accordingly recommended that Judge Reed O’Connor grant the motion, reverse the ALJ’s decision, and remand the case to the Commissioner for further administrative action.

Key Takeaways

• Fourth-sentence remands under § 405(g) require the district court to rule on the merits; sixth-sentence remands do not.
• Sixth-sentence remands are limited to situations where the Commissioner requests remand before responding or new, material evidence is presented for good cause.
• Unopposed remand motions advance the interests of judicial economy by returning cases to the agency for reconsideration without requiring full briefing and decision on the merits.
• The procedural posture of a case—whether the defendant has filed a brief or presented new evidence—determines which remand standard applies.

Why It Matters

This recommendation clarifies the procedural framework governing Social Security appeals in federal court. Practitioners handling Social Security disability cases must understand when courts may remand unopposed motions without deciding the case on the merits, versus when the law requires judgment before remand. The decision reinforces that courts have discretion to remand for further agency proceedings when neither party contests the motion and no new evidence has been introduced.

For Social Security applicants and their counsel, the case illustrates that remand to the agency—while not a grant of benefits—can provide an opportunity for reconsideration and additional development of the administrative record before final judicial determination.