Simons v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-04844-PMH-AEK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Simons v. Commissioner of Social Security, U.S. Magistrate Judge Krause ordered letters on possible remand after Carr v. Saul.
Simons and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order particularly required Simons, described as proceeding without a lawyer, to state whether remand was requested.
What happened
In Simons v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a possible constitutional problem with the appointment of the administrative law judge who handled Simons’s Social Security benefits case. The opinion says the hearing and decision occurred before that judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018, and Simons had not raised this issue in federal court.
Because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, the parties were told to discuss whether the case should return to the Social Security agency for a new hearing before a properly appointed administrative law judge. Simons was required to tell the court by June 1, 2021, whether a remand was requested; the Commissioner could respond by June 8, 2021, if needed.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause did not decide whether to remand the case or resolve the benefits dispute. The order warned that declining remand at this stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, while also stating that doing so would not prejudice Simons before the court or change the timing of pending motions.
The detailed version
- Simons v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:17-cv-04844-PMH-AEK
- Philip Halpern
- May 10, 2021
Background
Simons’s hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge, and the judge’s decision on the benefits claim, occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. The opinion states that Simons had not raised a challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in the federal-court case.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul held that Social Security disability-benefits applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during the agency proceedings before presenting it for the first time in federal court, when the hearing and decision involved an administrative law judge whose appointment did not comply with that constitutional provision.
Order
In light of Carr, 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 constitutionally appointed administrative law judge who was different from the judge who previously handled Simons’s claim.
Simons was ordered to submit, by June 1, 2021, a letter of no more than five pages stating whether remand was requested and providing any supporting legal argument. If necessary, the Commissioner could submit a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021.
The court warned that if Simons chose not to request remand on the Appointments Clause issue at that stage, that decision might waive the challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. The court also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Simons before the court or affect the timing of the court’s decision on pending motions if the case remained in federal court. Chambers staff was directed to mail Simons a copy of the order and the Carr decision.
Result and significance
This was a case-management order, not a decision on whether Simons was entitled to Social Security benefits and not a ruling granting or denying remand. The order required the parties to address the possible remand and set deadlines for their letters. Judge Andrew E. Krause did not resolve the underlying benefits dispute in this opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.