Sentence 4 vs Sentence 6 Remands in Federal Court

Federal courts use two different remand tools in SSDI appeals, and the difference between them comes from the fourth and sixth sentences of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). A sentence four remand is a merits judgment that ends the lawsuit and orders the agency to fix legal errors, while a sentence six remand is a procedural order that sends the case back to gather new, material evidence without deciding who should win.

The distinction controls what the judge must decide, when your case ends, whether you are a prevailing party, and even the deadline for attorney fee applications. Knowing which remand fits your situation is central to planning a federal disability appeal.

Where the Two Sentences Come From

The judicial review statute for Social Security claims, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), spells out both remands in consecutive sentences, and courts simply refer to them by position. The fourth sentence gives the court power "to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing."

The sixth sentence works differently. It allows the court, on the Commissioner's motion made for good cause before the answer is filed, to remand for further agency action, and it also lets the court "at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner," but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and good cause for the failure to include it earlier.

The Sentence Four Remand: A Judgment on the Merits

A sentence four remand is what most people picture when they imagine winning a federal disability appeal. The judge reviews the certified administrative record, finds that the administrative law judge committed a legal error, and enters judgment against the Commissioner.

Common grounds include flawed evaluation of medical opinions under 20 CFR 404.1520c, incomplete reasoning about symptoms under 20 CFR 404.1529, or hypothetical questions to the vocational expert that omitted proven limitations. In each situation the court is deciding the legal sufficiency of the decision on the record that already exists.

The Supreme Court treated sentence four orders as final judgments in Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991), and reaffirmed in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), that a sentence four remand terminates the civil action in district court. Three practical consequences follow:

• The judgment is appealable, by either side, in the normal way.
• A claimant who wins a sentence four remand is a prevailing party for Equal Access to Justice Act fee purposes.
• The 30 day window for filing an EAJA fee application begins when the time for appeal expires, as the Court held in Shalala v. Schaefer.

The Sentence Six Remand: A Procedural Send Back

A sentence six remand exists for a different problem. It applies when the record itself was incomplete because relevant evidence never made it in front of the ALJ, not because the ALJ read the existing record wrongly.

The statute imposes three hurdles, and all three must be satisfied:

1. The evidence must be new, meaning it did not exist in the record at the time of the administrative decision.
2. The evidence must be material, meaning it is relevant and probative to the issues, and there must be a reasonable possibility it would have changed the outcome.
3. There must be good cause for the failure to incorporate it into the record earlier, such as evidence that emerged after the hearing or that the agency could not obtain.

A sentence six remand can happen in two ways. The Commissioner may move for it before filing the answer, for good cause shown. Or the claimant can ask the court at any time to order the additional evidence taken. Because the court does not rule on the merits, the district court keeps jurisdiction while the agency develops and considers the new evidence. Once the Commissioner files the modified findings and decision back with the court, as 405(g) requires, the judge reviews that outcome, and final judgment comes afterward.

This timeline difference matters for fees, too. Under Melkonyan, in a sentence six case the EAJA clock does not start until the court enters its judgment after the remand proceedings conclude, which can be much later than in a sentence four case.

Choosing the Right Remand for Your Case

The choice flows from the answer to one question: is the problem legal error on a complete record, or is the record missing evidence? When the ALJ misweighed opinions that are already in the file, the remedy is a sentence four remand directing a new decision. When a treating physician's records dated after the hearing never reached the ALJ, the remedy is a sentence six remand.

Some cases need both. A court can reverse for legal error under sentence four and, in appropriate cases, orders also reference post decision evidence under sentence six principles. If you are unsure which fits, that evaluation is a core reason claimants use experienced federal court representatives.

What Happens After the Court Remands

Whatever route the remand takes, the case returns to SSA through the Appeals Council. Under 20 CFR 404.983, when a federal court remands a case for further consideration, the Appeals Council acting for the Commissioner may issue a decision itself, or far more commonly assigns the case to an administrative law judge with instructions to take action and issue a new decision.

The post remand ALJ decision becomes the Commissioner's final decision unless the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction, which it may do under 20 CFR 404.984 based on written exceptions you file. One important protection comes from 20 CFR 404.985: on remand, SSA will apply a holding from your own United States Court of Appeals that conflicts with its interpretation of the Act or regulations. That rule, often called acquiescence, is why a remand from your circuit can improve the ground rules for the second hearing.

The new hearing is not limited to a paper review. You can testify again, submit the evidence that was missing, and question revised expert testimony, while the ALJ remains bound by the court's instructions on the errors to correct.

Which Remand Gets You Benefits Faster

Neither remand is automatically faster, and no one can promise a timeline. A sentence four remand ends the litigation and usually produces a new hearing order aimed squarely at the identified errors. A sentence six remand keeps the federal case open while the agency considers new evidence, which can mean a second round of court review afterward. The right choice is the one that matches the actual defect in your case, because asking for the wrong one invites denial.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a sentence four and a sentence six remand? A sentence four remand under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) is a judgment on the merits that ends the federal case and orders a fresh agency review to fix legal errors. A sentence six remand does not decide the merits; it sends the case back so the agency can consider new, material evidence that was missing for good cause.

Which remand type lets me present new medical records in federal court? The sentence six remand. The court may order additional evidence taken, but only upon a showing that the evidence is new, material, and there is good cause why it was not incorporated into the record earlier.

What happens after either remand is ordered? The Appeals Council handles the court remand under 20 CFR 404.983 and usually assigns the case to an administrative law judge for a new hearing and decision. On remand, SSA applies binding court of appeals precedent from your circuit under 20 CFR 404.985.

This article provides general information about Social Security Disability Insurance rules and is not legal advice. Program regulations, appeal procedures, and administrative guidelines change over time, and all figures reflect standards applicable in 2026. Consult a qualified representative or contact the Social Security Administration directly for guidance regarding your individual claim.