Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01733
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi, Judge Tunheim overruled Elizabeth A.W.’s objection, adopted the recommendation, and granted the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion.
Elizabeth A.W.’s Social Security disability-benefits claim; the Commissioner prevailed on the summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Elizabeth A.W. asked the court to review the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for disability benefits. A magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Elizabeth A.W. objected by raising a new argument that the administrative law judge was not properly appointed and therefore lacked authority to decide her claim. She had not raised that argument before the magistrate judge.
Judge Tunheim ruled that the court could not consider the new argument at the objection stage. He overruled the objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Elizabeth A.W. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01733
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Elizabeth A.W. brought this action seeking judicial review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her request for Social Security disability insurance benefits. She had applied for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and alleged several disabilities beginning in January 2014. After a hearing, the administrative law judge denied her request in June 2019. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied her appeal.
In this court, Elizabeth A.W. initially focused mainly on whether the administrative law judge should have placed her in an “advanced age” category when evaluating her claim. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted.
Objection and analysis
Elizabeth A.W. did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on the summary-judgment motions. Instead, she raised a new argument that the administrative law judge had not been constitutionally appointed and therefore lacked authority to hear and decide her claim. She asked the court to send the matter back to the administrative law judge.
The court held that it could not consider an argument raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court relied on Eighth Circuit precedent stating that parties must present their claims to the magistrate judge and may not raise new arguments in objections. The court rejected Elizabeth A.W.’s argument that a “manifest injustice” exception allowed review at that stage, explaining that the cited standard concerned whether an argument was preserved for appeal, not whether it could first be presented to the district court in an objection.
The court acknowledged that the appointment issue was a novel legal question and stated that Elizabeth A.W. could seek review through a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 after the order was issued. The court also stated that she had substantial grounds to seek relief based on that argument, but it did not decide the argument’s merits in this order.
Disposition
The court overruled Elizabeth A.W.’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s January 21, 2022 report and recommendation, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.