David A. P. v. Kijakazi
- Tony Leung
- 0:20-cv-01586
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In David A. P. v. Kijakazi, Judge Leung granted relief, vacated the remand, and reinstated the earlier ruling favoring the Commissioner.
David A. P. and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the ruling restored the Commissioner’s earlier summary-judgment victory and removed the order requiring a new hearing.
What happened
David A. P. v. Kijakazi concerned the Commissioner’s request to undo a later order that had reopened the case and sent it back for a new hearing. The earlier ruling had denied David A. P.’s request for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s request for summary judgment.
The court had later ordered a new hearing because it believed the administrative law judge who decided David A. P.’s case had not been properly appointed. While that order was in place, the Eighth Circuit decided that the official who had approved the administrative law judge’s appointment was properly serving as Acting Commissioner. The Commissioner argued that this changed the controlling law and required the court to restore its earlier ruling.
Judge Leung granted the Commissioner’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court vacated its February 17, 2023 order and accompanying judgment, and reinstated its March 31, 2022 order denying David A. P.’s motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- David A. P. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01586
- Tony Leung
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
The court previously ruled on the merits on March 31, 2022. It denied David A. P.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Acting Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
David A. P. later sought post-judgment relief to reopen the case and address whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) who denied his disability claim had constitutional authority to decide it. Based on an earlier District of Minnesota decision, the court concluded that the ALJ had acted under a ratification by Nancy Berryhill and was not constitutionally appointed. The court therefore granted post-judgment relief, vacated its earlier ruling, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ.
The Eighth Circuit later decided the appeal of that earlier District of Minnesota decision in Dahle v. Kijakazi. The Eighth Circuit held that Berryhill was properly serving as Acting Commissioner when she ratified the Social Security Administration ALJs’ appointments. The Commissioner then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for relief from the judgment, asking the court to vacate the remand and reinstate its earlier merits ruling.
Analysis
Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask a court to alter or amend a judgment. The court explained that such a motion may correct a clear legal or factual error or account for newly discovered evidence, and that an intervening change in controlling law may support changing an earlier judgment.
The court determined that the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Dahle involved the same legal issue underlying the court’s earlier remand. Because the earlier post-judgment relief rested on the theory that Berryhill was not properly serving as Acting Commissioner, the Eighth Circuit’s decision changed the controlling law and required the court to amend its earlier ruling.
Order
The Commissioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 59(e) was GRANTED. The court’s February 17, 2023 Order and accompanying Judgment were VACATED. The court’s March 31, 2022 Order was REINSTATED. That reinstated order denied David A. P.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.