VanRyn Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:17-cv-04038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In VanRyn Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Krause ordered briefing on possible remand after Carr addressed an administrative judge’s appointment challenge.
The plaintiff, VanRyn Rodriguez, and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order concerned whether Rodriguez’s case should be sent back for a new hearing before a different constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
What happened
VanRyn Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns a Social Security disability case in which the hearing and decision occurred before the administrative judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul held that claimants could raise certain appointment challenges in federal court without first raising them before the Social Security Administration.
Rodriguez had not raised that challenge in this federal case. The court therefore directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, properly appointed administrative judge.
Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered Rodriguez to file a letter by June 1, 2021, stating whether Rodriguez wanted a remand; the Commissioner could respond by June 8, 2021. The order did not itself grant or deny remand.
The detailed version
- VanRyn Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:17-cv-04038
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The Supreme Court held in Carr v. Saul that Social Security disability applicants did not have to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration before raising it for the first time in federal court. An Appointments Clause challenge argues that the official who conducted the hearing or issued the decision was not appointed in the manner required by the Constitution.
In this case, the plaintiff’s hearing was conducted and the administrative law judge’s decision was issued before that judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The plaintiff had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal proceeding.
Court’s action
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 administrative law judge other than the judge who previously heard and decided the plaintiff’s benefits claim.
The court ordered the plaintiff to file, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether the plaintiff requested remand and, if so, providing legal support. 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 could waive the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice the plaintiff before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Disposition
Judge Andrew E. Krause did not order a remand or decide the underlying Social Security benefits dispute. The order required further letters from the parties concerning whether remand should be requested.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.