Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Martin Hernandez brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge conducted Hernandez’s hearing on June 15, 2017, and issued the agency decision on October 25, 2017.

Hernandez moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the administrative law judge had not been properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The Commissioner cross-moved to remand, arguing that the administrative law judge had improperly weighed medical-opinion evidence. The Commissioner also argued that Hernandez had forfeited the appointment challenge by failing to raise it during the administrative proceedings and that the case should therefore return to the same administrative law judge.

Appointments Clause issue

The court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, issued on April 22, 2021. Carr held that claimants were not required to raise Appointments Clause challenges to Social Security administrative law judges during agency proceedings in order to preserve those challenges for judicial review. Applying Carr, the court held that Hernandez’s challenge was timely even though he first raised it in federal court.

The Commissioner’s briefing did not dispute, for purposes of that case, that Social Security administrative law judges were officers subject to the Appointments Clause. Instead, the Commissioner focused on Hernandez’s failure to raise the issue before the agency. The opinion also noted that the Acting Commissioner had later attempted to ratify the appointments of all Social Security administrative law judges, but Hernandez’s hearing and decision occurred before that ratification.

Remedy

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, the court concluded that the case had to be assigned on remand to a different, properly appointed administrative law judge. The judge who had already heard and decided Hernandez’s case could not be expected to reconsider it as though it had not previously been adjudicated.

The court did not decide Hernandez’s arguments that the administrative law judge’s findings lacked substantial evidentiary support, that the judge improperly weighed a treating physician’s opinion, or that the judge failed to assess Hernandez’s ability to work function by function. It also did not decide the Commissioner’s argument concerning the weighing of medical evidence. The opinion stated that the parties could raise those arguments later if Hernandez was again denied benefits on similar grounds.

Disposition

The court ordered that Hernandez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part as to the Appointments Clause challenge and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings before a properly appointed administrative law judge. It further ordered that the case be assigned to a different administrative law judge from the one who conducted the original hearing and issued the original agency decision. The Commissioner’s cross-motion to remand was denied. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in Hernandez’s favor directing remand.