Serrano v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Carmen Serrano brought this action under the Social Security Act seeking review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her disability benefits. Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and record without a trial.

Serrano challenged the administrative law judge’s decision on two primary grounds. First, she argued that the judge erred in finding that she was not disabled despite her severe mental impairment. She specifically challenged the weight given to the opinions of two physicians and argued that the vocational expert’s testimony was not substantial evidence because it relied on erroneous findings.

Second, Serrano argued that the administrative law judge was not properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. She sought a remand for proceedings before a properly appointed administrative law judge. The Commissioner did not dispute that the administrative law judge had been improperly appointed, but argued that Serrano forfeited, or lost, the ability to raise that challenge in federal court because she did not raise it before the agency.

Magistrate Judge’s Report

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave concluded that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. She also determined that Serrano’s failure to raise the Appointments Clause challenge before the administrative law judge did not prevent her from raising it for the first time in the district court.

Magistrate Judge Cave recommended postponing a decision on the Appointments Clause issue until the Supreme Court resolved the issue in pending cases. The Commissioner timely objected to the finding that Serrano had not forfeited the challenge. The Commissioner did not object to the recommendation to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision.

District Court’s Analysis

Judge Daniels reviewed de novo, meaning independently and afresh, the portion of the report challenged by the Commissioner. He noted that the Commissioner’s objection repeated arguments already made to Magistrate Judge Cave. Judge Daniels agreed with Magistrate Judge Cave’s conclusion and the reasoning of the decisions cited in the report that Serrano had not forfeited her Appointments Clause challenge.

The court adopted the report and overruled the Commissioner’s objection. It declined to postpone its ruling on Serrano’s Appointments Clause challenge.

Disposition

Serrano’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED. The Commissioner’s motion was DENIED. The matter was remanded for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. The clerk was directed to close the motions.