Madera v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-00649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Madera v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Krause scheduled a conference about possible remand after Carr raised an appointment issue.
Amalia Madera and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order also directed the parties to address whether Madera’s case should be remanded for a new hearing before a different administrative law judge.
What happened
In Madera v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a possible challenge to the appointment of the administrative law judge who handled Amalia Madera’s benefits claim. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul held that claimants did not have to raise this type of challenge during Social Security proceedings before bringing it in federal court.
The court said Madera’s hearing and the administrative law judge’s decision occurred before the Acting Commissioner ratified that judge’s appointment. Because Madera had not raised the appointment challenge in federal court, the court directed the parties to discuss whether she would request a remand for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed judge. The court did not decide whether to remand or resolve the pending motions.
Judge Andrew E. Krause scheduled a telephone conference for May 7, 2021, to discuss the issue and hear argument if necessary. The court also warned that declining to request a remand at that stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including appeals.
The detailed version
- Madera v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-00649
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
Amalia Madera’s Social Security disability-benefits claim was heard and decided by an administrative law judge (ALJ). The opinion states that both the ALJ hearing and the ALJ’s decision occurred before the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ratified the ALJ’s appointment in July 2018. Madera had not raised a challenge to the ALJ’s appointment under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution in the federal-court proceeding.
Effect of Carr v. Saul
The court discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that Social Security disability-benefits applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising it for the first time in federal court.
Court’s Action
In light of Carr, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether Madera should request a remand to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different ALJ whose appointment complied with the Constitution. The court stated that choosing not to request a remand at that stage might waive the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request a remand would not prejudice Madera before the court or affect the timing of the decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Judge Andrew E. Krause scheduled an AT&T telephone conference for May 7, 2021, to discuss the issue and hear argument if necessary. This order did not grant or deny a remand and did not decide the pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.