Adriana de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

In Follen v. Commissioner of Social Security, decided on February 11, 2026, the Sixth Circuit delivered an important procedural clarification for practitioners handling federal court Social Security appeals. While the decision does not address the substantive standards for disability, it reinforces a critical jurisdictional principle under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g): district courts must strictly adhere to the statutory framework when issuing remand orders.

Background

After the claimant sought judicial review of an unfavorable ALJ decision, the Commissioner filed a post-answer motion requesting remand so the agency could “further articulate” the persuasiveness of the evidence and reconsider certain medical opinions. Notably, the Commissioner did not concede reversible error.

The claimant agreed that remand was appropriate but argued that the proper remedy was an award of benefits rather than further administrative proceedings.

The district court granted a remand under Sentence Four of § 405(g), ordering further consideration and a new decision. However, it did not affirm, modify, or reverse the ALJ’s decision, nor did it identify a legal defect in the ALJ’s analysis.

The Sixth Circuit’s Holding

The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s order, concluding that it failed to comply with either Sentence Four or Sentence Six of § 405(g).

The court emphasized:

• A Sentence Four remand requires a merits determination and must be accompanied by a final judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision.
• A Sentence Six remand requires specific predicate findings and does not involve a ruling on the merits.

Because the district court’s order did neither, it fell outside the statutory bounds. The Sixth Circuit reiterated that district courts do not possess inherent authority to craft alternative forms of remand outside Sentences Four and Six.

Why This Matters to Claimant Representatives

For practitioners, the distinction is more than technical. It directly affects:

• Appellate jurisdiction
• Finality of judgment
• Timing of EAJA petitions
• Strategic considerations when responding to post-answer remand motions

When the Commissioner seeks remand without conceding error, representatives should carefully evaluate which statutory mechanism applies. If a Sentence Four remand is contemplated, the court must identify a defect in the ALJ’s decision. If the request more closely resembles a Sentence Six remand, the necessary statutory findings must be made explicitly.

Hybrid remands, or orders that simply send the case back for “further consideration” without statutory grounding, risk vacatur on appeal.

Clarity under § 405(g) is not optional, it is jurisdictional. When briefing remand issues, representatives should frame arguments in terms of the statutory language and ensure the district court’s order aligns with either Sentence Four or Sentence Six.

Follen serves as a reminder that procedural precision in Social Security litigation is essential, not only to protect our clients’ interests but also to preserve the integrity of appellate review.

---

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.

---

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.