Personnel in public agencies play a central role in who benefits from public programs by determining whether claimants meet complex eligibility rules. The government has built in due process protections for individual claimants by giving them the ability to appeal administrative decisions to a higher level within the agency or to the courts. The most common response to these appeals, outside of affirming the decision of the lower level (denying the claim), is to remand the case back to a lower level decision-maker for further examination, collection of evidence, and reconsideration. Given that remands send ambiguous signals to lower level decision-makers and lack any enforcement, it is not surprising that existing scholarship does not view them as important mechanisms to ensure bureaucratic responsiveness. In this paper, we hypothesize, however, that remands have the potential to affect bureaucratic decision-making because they influence the workload of bureaucrats. We find evidence in support of this hypothesis using data on eligibility determinations of administrative law judges in the Social Security Disability program.