Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:18-cv-00462
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crawford v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered discussions about possible Social Security remand after Carr v. Saul.
Crawford and the Commissioner of Social Security. Crawford was required to state whether remand was requested, and the Commissioner could respond; the order also warned about possible waiver of the Appointments Clause challenge.
What happened
In Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a possible challenge to the appointment of the administrative law judge who handled Crawford’s Social Security benefits claim. The hearing and decision occurred before that judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018, and Crawford had not raised the appointment challenge in the federal case.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that Social Security applicants did not have to raise this type of appointment challenge during agency proceedings before raising it in federal court. The parties were directed to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative law judge.
Crawford had to tell the court by June 1, 2021, whether Crawford wanted a remand, and the Commissioner could respond by June 8 if necessary. Judge Andrew E. Krause warned that declining to request remand at that stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal, but would not prejudice Crawford before the court or affect the timing of decisions on the pending motions. The order did not decide whether remand should occur or resolve the benefits claim.
The detailed version
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:18-cv-00462
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
Crawford’s hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) and the ALJ’s decision occurred before the Acting Commissioner ratified the ALJ’s appointment in July 2018. Crawford had not raised a challenge under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution in the federal court proceeding.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that applicants for Social Security disability benefits were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before presenting that challenge in federal court.
Court’s Order
To promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary proceedings, 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 other than the ALJ who previously heard and decided Crawford’s benefits claim.
The court ordered Crawford to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether Crawford requested remand. If requesting remand, the letter could include supporting legal arguments; otherwise, it had to notify the court that Crawford did not request remand. The Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
The court stated that choosing not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage might constitute a waiver of that challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Crawford before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court. Court staff were directed to mail the order and a copy of Carr v. Saul to Crawford, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Disposition and Classification
Judge Andrew E. Krause issued a case-management order directing further discussion and briefing about possible remand. The order did not grant or deny remand, decide the pending motions, or resolve whether Crawford was entitled to benefits. It is classified as a procedural order because it addressed an ancillary case-management issue without deciding the underlying benefits claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.