David A. P. v. Kijakazi

Background

David A. P. brought this Social Security case challenging the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and supplemental security income under Title XVI. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.

While those motions were under consideration, David A. P. asked to amend his complaint to challenge the constitutional appointment of the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his claim. He argued that Acting Commissioner Berryhill lacked authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) to ratify the ALJ’s appointment. The court denied the motion to amend because it was filed late in the case.

On March 31, 2022, the court denied David A. P.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment. David A. P. then moved for relief from that judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for exceptional circumstances. He asked to reopen the case only to address whether the ALJ had constitutional authority to decide his claim. He also asked the court to wait for the Eighth Circuit’s decision in a related appeal. The Commissioner opposed reopening the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Rule 60(b) provides extraordinary relief and that Rule 60(b)(6) applies only when exceptional circumstances justify reopening a final judgment. A change in the law alone is not enough, but the court determined that the circumstances here went beyond the existence of a new decision.

The court relied on its analysis in an earlier related proceeding involving the effect of the FVRA on Berryhill’s authority to ratify ALJ appointments. In that analysis, the court concluded that Berryhill was not properly serving as Acting Commissioner in July 2018 and that her purported ratification of the Social Security Administration’s staff-selected ALJs was ineffective.

The parties agreed that ALJ Nicholas Grey was similarly situated to the ALJs addressed in the earlier decisions. Because Grey heard and decided David A. P.’s claim pursuant to Berryhill’s ratification, the court concluded that he lacked authority to decide the claim. The court therefore found that David A. P. was entitled to relief and declined to hold the motion in abeyance pending the related appeal.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part David A. P.’s Rule 60(b) motion. It granted his request for relief from the March 31, 2022 order and judgment, but denied his request to hold the motion in abeyance.

The court vacated its March 31, 2022 order and judgment and vacated the ALJ’s September 25, 2019 decision. It remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ who is not the same ALJ who presided over David A. P.’s July 2019 hearing.