O'Connell v. Berryhill

Background

The opinion concerns O’Connell’s Social Security disability-benefits case. The hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ) and the ALJ’s decision occurred before the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ratified the ALJ’s appointment in July 2018. O’Connell had not raised a challenge under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution in the federal court proceeding.

Effect of Carr v. Saul

The court discussed the Supreme Court’s April 22, 2021 decision in Carr v. Saul. Carr held that Social Security disability-benefits applicants whose hearings or decisions were handled by an ALJ whose appointment did not comply with the Appointments Clause were not required to raise that challenge first in proceedings before the Social Security Administration. They could raise it for the first time in federal court.

Court’s Order

To promote efficiency, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss 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 handled O’Connell’s claim. The court required O’Connell to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages either requesting remand and providing supporting legal arguments or stating that O’Connell did not request remand. The Commissioner could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.

The court warned that declining to request remand at that stage might waive the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice O’Connell before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court. The order did not grant or deny remand and did not decide the underlying benefits claim.