Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:19-cv-05474-NSR-AEK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lawyer v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered the parties to discuss possible remand after an Appointments Clause ruling.
The plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security, particularly regarding whether the plaintiff would request a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
What happened
In Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff’s hearing and decision occurred before the administrative law judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018. The Supreme Court later held in Carr v. Saul that claimants did not have to raise this type of challenge during the agency proceedings first.
The court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Social Security Commissioner for a new hearing before a properly appointed administrative law judge. The plaintiff had to tell the court by June 1, 2021, whether remand was requested, and the Commissioner could respond by June 8 if needed.
Judge Andrew E. Krause did not order remand in this order. He warned that declining to request remand at this stage might waive the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, while stating that declining would not harm the plaintiff’s position before the court or delay a decision on the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-05474-NSR-AEK
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The plaintiff’s hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) and the ALJ’s decision occurred before the Acting Commissioner ratified that ALJ’s appointment in July 2018. The opinion explains that, in Carr v. Saul, the Supreme Court held that Social Security disability-benefit applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising it in federal court.
The opinion states that the plaintiff had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal case.
Court’s Direction
The court directed the parties to meet and confer about whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally appointed ALJ who was different from the ALJ who previously heard and decided the plaintiff’s benefits claim.
The plaintiff was ordered to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether the plaintiff requested remand and, if so, providing legal support. If necessary, the Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
Effect of Not Requesting Remand
The order stated that choosing not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might waive the challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice the plaintiff before the court and would not affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Disposition
This order did not grant or deny remand. It directed the parties to discuss the issue and required the plaintiff to state a position. The matter was otherwise left pending.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.