Pamela J. Follen v. Social Security Administration

Akron, Ohio, social security disability lawyer represented the Plaintiff seeking review of the denial by HHS of her application for social security benefits.

Pamela J. Follen filed a complaint for judicial review in the district court because the
SSA denied her application for disability benefits. After answering, the Commissioner of Social Security “further reviewed [Follen]’s case and determined that remand for additional proceedings is appropriate here.” R. 12, Motion to Remand, PageID 1000. So the Commissioner moved for a remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to allow the ALJ to “further articulat[e] . . . the persuasiveness of th[e] evidence.” Id. at 1002. In service of that
goal, the Commissioner sought “further consideration of the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings.” Id. It did not assert that the ALJ committed reversible error, nor did it seek affirmance or modification of the denial of benefits. Follen “agree[d] with a remand” but asked the court to remand with instructions to award her benefits, rather than remanding for reconsideration of the evidence. R. 13, Opp. to Mot. to Remand, PageID 1004.

The district court granted the motion. It said it was “not prepared to conclude the record adequately establishes [Follen’s] entitlement to an award of benefits at this time,” reasoning that factual disputes remained outstanding. R. 14, Order of Remand, PageID 1007. So, invoking Sentence Four, it remanded the case to the SSA “for further consideration of Plaintiff’s claim, further development of the administrative record as necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and issuance of a new decision.” Id. at 1008. The district court did not say that the ALJ committed reversible error, nor did it affirm or modify the denial of benefits.

Reversed