Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JULIE A. HANDWERK, 	: Civil No. 1:25-CV-1377
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
:
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	:
Commissioner of Social Security, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the Commissioner’s motion to remand
this action pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).1 	The
plaintiff, Julie Handwerk, opposes the motion and argues that remand
for 	an 	award 	of 	benefits 	rather 	than 	for 	further 	proceedings 	is
warranted. 2 After review, we conclude that remand for further review is
appropriate.
The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states, “[t]he court shall
have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a
judgment 	affirming, 	modifying, 	or 	reversing 	the 	decision 	of 	the
1 Doc. 11.
2 Doc. 13.
Case 1:25-cv-01377-DFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause
for a rehearing.” Accordingly, the court may remand a matter for further
review or simply direct an award of benefits. 3 	An award of benefits
“should be made only when the administrative record of the case has been
fully developed and when substantial evidence on the record as a whole
indicates 	that 	the 	claimant 	is 	disabled 	and 	entitled 	to 	benefits.”4
Excessive delay, measured by both the passage of years and the amount
of prior remands, is also considered in the determination of whether to
award benefits. 5
Handwerk 	argues 	that 	remand 	for 	an 	award 	of 	benefits 	is
warranted. 	She avers that the administrative record is fully developed
as evinced by the 7,330-page record, which includes five administrative
hearings and testimony from four vocational experts. 6 	Handwerk also
contends that substantial evidence indicates she is disabled and entitled
3
Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210, 221 (3d Cir. 1984).
4
Id. at 221–22.
5
	Diaz 	v. 	Berryhill, 	388 	F. 	Supp. 	3d 	382, 	391 	(M.D. 	Pa. 	2019)
(“administrative delays of five years or more in cases involving one or two
prior remands have constituted excessive delays triggering consideration
of an award of benefits in lieu of a remand.”).
6 Doc. 13 at 1.
Case 1:25-cv-01377-DFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
to benefits based on the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding of
an onset date of disability of March 3, 2023, and that each of her treating
specialists found that she cannot work full-time.7 	Lastly, Handwerk
claims excessive delay has occurred which she is not responsible for as
her application for benefits was filed more than 15 years ago and her
claim was remanded three times prior. 8
We find Handwerk’s argument unavailing. 	While we appreciate
the prolonged time frame of this matter and the voluminous record
therein, we also recognize that Handwerk’s claim was denied numerous
times and her request for review relates to the ALJ’s finding that she was
not disabled prior to March 3, 2023, with regard to her SSI claim and was
not disabled with regard to her DIB claim. The Commissioner concedes,
albeit implicitly, that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the evidence or
explain his factual findings. 9 	The Commissioner further states that
“there are findings of fact related to two distinct periods – one for DIB
and one for SSI – that require factual findings.”10 He explains that, “[o]n
7
Id. at 2.
8
Id.
9
See Doc. 12 at 8.
10
Id.
Case 1:25-cv-01377-DFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
remand, the Commissioner, through the Appeals Council, will refer
Plaintiff’s case to an Administrative Law Judge to further evaluate the
opinion 	evidence, 	further 	evaluate 	Plaintiff’s 	physical 	and 	mental
functioning, 	offer 	Plaintiff 	the 	opportunity 	for 	a 	hearing, 	obtain
vocational expert evidence if proceeding to step five of the sequential
evaluation process, and issue a new decision.”11
Indeed, the ALJ’s decision must be accompanied by “a clear and
satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests,”12 and the ALJ must
“indicate in his decision which evidence he has rejected and which he is
relying on as the basis for his finding.”13 	We must also remain mindful
that “we must not substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
finder.” 14 	Thus, we do not find that an award for benefits is appropriate
at this juncture.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED, and the
above-captioned action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
11 Doc. 11 ¶ 3.
12
Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981).
13
Schaudeck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 181 F. 3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999).
14
Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 611 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
Rutherford
v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2005)).
Case 1:25-cv-01377-DFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
So ordered this 6th day of January 2026.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01377-DFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 5