Croston v. Social Security

Background

Nondey Lee Croston sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of an administrative law judge’s decision denying disability benefits. Both sides moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and record without a trial.

Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended granting Croston’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. The Commissioner filed objections, and Croston responded.

Issue

Croston raised several challenges, including arguments that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated medical opinions and Croston’s statements about the claimed limitations. Croston also argued that the administrative law judge was an improperly appointed officer under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and therefore lacked authority to decide the claim.

The court addressed the appointment issue first. The administrative law judge had decided Croston’s case on June 19, 2017. The opinion states that, after a Supreme Court decision concerning the appointment of federal administrative law judges, the acting Commissioner ratified the appointments of all Social Security administrative law judges on July 16, 2018, but that action did not affect Croston’s earlier case.

The Commissioner did not dispute that the administrative law judge in Croston’s case was improperly appointed. Instead, the Commissioner argued that Croston forfeited the appointment challenge by failing to raise it during the administrative proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s conclusion that Croston did not have to raise the Appointments Clause challenge before the administrative law judge in order to preserve it for review in the district court. The court noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had not yet decided the issue and that other federal appellate courts had reached different conclusions.

Because the administrative law judge was improperly appointed, the court determined that the proper remedy was a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. The court declined to wait for the Supreme Court to decide related cases. Because the appointment issue resolved the case, the court did not decide Croston’s other challenges to the disability-benefits determination or whether Croston was eligible for benefits.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Croston’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the matter for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. The opinion does not state that benefits were awarded.

Judge

The decision was issued by United States District Judge George B. Daniels.