O'Connell v. Berryhill
- Andrew Krause
- 7:18-cv-10546-AEK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In O’Connell v. Saul, Judge Krause ordered Lee O’Connell to clarify whether he seeks remand based on the Appointments Clause.
Lee O’Connell, who was directed to clarify whether he sought remand based on the Appointments Clause issue; the court’s pending motions and later proceedings could also be affected by that choice.
What happened
In O’Connell v. Saul, Lee O’Connell asked the court to send his case back to the Social Security Commissioner for a new hearing. The court had asked him to explain his position in light of a Supreme Court decision concerning challenges under the Appointments Clause.
O’Connell’s response repeated earlier arguments but did not address whether he wanted remand based on that issue. The court therefore directed him to submit another letter by June 3, 2021, specifically addressing that question.
The court did not decide whether to remand the case or resolve the underlying Social Security dispute. Judge Andrew E. Krause stated that declining to request remand at that stage would not prejudice O’Connell before the court or affect the timing of a decision on pending motions, although it might affect later proceedings or appeals.
The detailed version
- O'Connell v. Berryhill · No. 7:18-cv-10546-AEK
- Andrew Krause
- May 28, 2021
Background
Lee O’Connell submitted a May 27, 2021 letter requesting that the court remand, or send back, his case to the Commissioner of Social Security for a new hearing. The letter responded to the court’s May 10, 2021 order, which had directed O’Connell to state his position on remand and provide supporting legal arguments in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul. That decision involved an issue under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
The court found that O’Connell’s letter did not address the Appointments Clause issue and instead repeated arguments from earlier submissions. As a result, the court said it still did not know whether O’Connell sought remand on that basis.
Court’s Action
The court directed O’Connell to submit a letter by June 3, 2021, specifically stating whether he sought remand at that time based on the Appointments Clause issue discussed in Carr.
The court also repeated that declining to request remand at that stage might constitute a waiver of the Appointments Clause challenge in later proceedings, including appeals. It stated, however, that choosing not to request remand would not prejudice O’Connell before that court or affect the timing of its decision on the pending motions if the case remained in federal court.
Disposition and Classification
This order directed a further filing; it did not grant or deny remand and did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute. The matter is classified as a procedural order because the court addressed the next required step rather than the merits of O’Connell’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.