Upon receipt of a new sentence four remand order not issued as a result of the request for voluntary remand procedures, the analyst's preliminary consideration will be whether to appeal the order (see Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) manual HA 01460.001). Remand orders under sentence six are generally not appealable because they are interlocutory actions; i.e., interim, not final. However, appellate review of a district court interlocutory order on a controlling question of law may be obtained (28 U.S.C. 1292(b)).

Remand orders under either sentence four or sentence six may also be appealable in certain infrequent cases under the “collateral order” doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, 337 U.S. 541 (1949); a remand is appealable if it is, in effect, a final disposition of a claimed right. Therefore, the analyst will carefully review any remand order which appears to apply an incorrect legal standard or invalidate a regulation, ruling or procedure to determine whether appeal may be warranted.

Additionally, reargument before a district court may be warranted under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment may be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment. Rule 60(b) provides that a motion for relief from final judgment may be made within a reasonable time (but not more than a year), and that relief may be granted for reasons such as mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, etc.

Example:

Medical opinion in a case indicates that coronary arteriography would definitely establish the claimant's residual functional capacity. The claimant states that the claimant is unable to afford this procedure and the court remands the case to the Commissioner to obtain it on a consultative basis. The court's order gives no indication that the court was aware of the regulatory prohibition against purchase of an invasive medical procedure (e.g., coronary arteriograms, cardiac catheterizations, myelograms, etc.) by SSA (see 20 CFR 404.1519m and 416.919m). In this case, the analyst should recommend reargument following the procedures in HALLEX HA 01460.015 C, below.

If the analyst concludes that appeal of a remand order is warranted, the analyst will discuss the case with an administrative appeals judge (AAJ). If warranted, the case will be brought to the attention of the Division Chief Administrative Appeals Judge (DCAAJ). In those instances where an appeal is warranted, the Court Case Preparation and Review Branch (CCPRB) Chief will contact the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).

If the analyst concludes that reargument of a district court order under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) is appropriate, the case will be discussed with an AAJ. If reargument is warranted, the CCPRB Chief will notify OGC. Analysts must act expeditiously in cases where reargument under Rule 59(e) is suggested because the time limits for such motions are so narrow.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain provisions for a motion and petition for rehearing, and for a suggestion for rehearing en banc of a circuit court opinion or order. If the analyst believes that such a motion or suggestion is warranted, the analyst will consult an AAJ.

If the AAJ agrees, the analyst will refer the case to the DCAAJ with a memorandum explaining the basis for the recommendation. If the AAJ disagrees with the analyst's assessment, the analyst will be advised of the action to be taken.