Jones v. Astrue
650 F.3d 772
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Jones applied for SSA disability benefits after an injury in 1995 left him unable to continue working as an electrician.
- An ALJ denied benefits, concluding Jones could perform other work under SSA guidelines.
- SSA later acknowledged a problem with relying solely on guidelines when pain is part of the impairment.
- The SSA moved for remand to supplement the record with new vocational expert evidence and issue a new decision.
- The district court agreed, reversing the SSA decision and remanding for further administrative proceedings, without Jones’s participation on the remand plan.
- The district court’s remand order relied on sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) rather than sentence six’s good-cause/new-evidence requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence four authorizes remand to take new evidence | Jones (via amicus) contends four does not allow additional evidence. | Astrue argues four permits remand to supplement the record. | The court vacates and remands for reconsideration of remedy under circuit law. |
| Whether district court could award benefits on remand | Jones could be entitled if prima facie showing and record supports entitlement. | Remand not automatic for benefits; must follow proper remand procedures. | Remand jurisdiction to determine proper remedy is remanded to district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1991) (remand authority under § 405(g) has two permissible forms)
- Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1990) (remand can involve new evidence; sentence four remand appealable)
- Krishnan v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 685 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (distinguishes sentence four remands from sentence six)
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (remand for additional evidence supported by circuit law)
- Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (permissibility of remand for supplementing the record)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (remand of case to obtain additional evidence)
- Faucher v. HHS, 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994) (limits on when district court may award benefits without clear entitlement)
- Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (U.S. 1989) (remand proceedings may involve opening the record; relate to sentence four)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (remand contemplated under sentence four in earlier cases)