Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Krause
- 7:17-cv-10050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Laden v. Commissioner, Judge Krause ordered the parties to discuss and brief whether Carr v. Saul warranted remand for a new Social Security hearing.
Laden and the Commissioner of Social Security, the parties in the pending federal case concerning Laden’s Social Security benefits claim.
What happened
In Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court addressed a possible challenge to the appointment of the administrative law judge who handled Laden’s Social Security benefits claim. The hearing and decision occurred before that judge’s appointment was ratified in July 2018, and Laden had not raised the appointment challenge in federal court.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, the court explained that Social Security applicants did not have to raise this type of appointment challenge in agency proceedings before presenting it in federal court. The court directed the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered Laden to file a letter by June 1, 2021, stating whether Laden requested remand and explaining the legal basis if requested; the Commissioner could respond by June 8. The order warned that declining remand at that stage might waive the appointment challenge in later proceedings, including an appeal, but said that declining would not prejudice Laden before the court or affect the timing of pending motions.
The detailed version
- Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:17-cv-10050
- Andrew Krause
- May 10, 2021
Background
The Supreme Court held in Carr v. Saul that Social Security disability-benefit applicants were not required to raise an Appointments Clause challenge during proceedings before the Social Security Administration when the administrative law judge who conducted the hearing or issued the decision was not appointed in accordance with the Constitution. The court stated that Laden’s hearing and the administrative law judge’s decision occurred before the judge’s appointment was ratified by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in July 2018. Laden had not raised an Appointments Clause challenge in this federal case.
Court’s Direction
To promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary proceedings, the court directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed administrative law judge. Laden was required to file a letter of no more than five pages by June 1, 2021, either requesting remand and providing supporting legal argument or stating that Laden did not request remand. The Commissioner could file a response of no more than five pages by June 8, 2021, if necessary.
Effect of the Order
The order did not itself remand the case or decide the underlying Social Security benefits dispute. It warned that Laden’s decision not to request remand at that stage might constitute a waiver of the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It also stated that declining to request remand would not prejudice Laden before the court and would not affect the timing of the court’s decision on pending motions if the case remained in federal court. Judge Andrew E. Krause entered the order on May 10, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.