Lushaj v. Berryhill
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-06751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lushaj v. Saul, Judge Karas remanded Stella Lushaj’s Social Security case for a new hearing and decision before a different administrative law judge.
Stella Lushaj, whose claims must receive further administrative review before a different administrative law judge, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
In Stella Lushaj v. Andrew M. Saul, the court sent Lushaj’s Social Security case back to the Commissioner for further review. The judgment followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that a claimant may raise an appointment-related challenge for the first time in federal court.
The remand requires the case to be assigned to a different administrative law judge. Lushaj must be offered an opportunity for a hearing, and the administrative law judge must issue a new decision.
Judge Karas’s court ordered the remand under sentence four of the federal Social Security law. The judgment does not state whether Lushaj will receive benefits, and each side must pay its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
The detailed version
- Lushaj v. Berryhill · No. 7:18-cv-06751
- Kenneth Karas
- June 3, 2021
Background
The judgment concerns Stella Lushaj’s Social Security case against Andrew M. Saul, identified in the caption as Commissioner of Social Security. The court stated that the remand was based on the parties’ June 3, 2021 stipulation and order and the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul.
Reason for Remand
Carr held that a Social Security claimant need not raise an Appointments Clause claim before the Social Security Administration and may instead present that claim for the first time in federal court. The Appointments Clause is a constitutional provision governing the appointment of certain federal officials. The judgment states that Lushaj’s case was remanded in connection with that decision.
Ruling and Effect
The court ordered that the action be remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the case must be assigned to a different administrative law judge, Lushaj must be offered an opportunity for a hearing, and the administrative law judge must issue a new decision. The judgment does not decide whether Lushaj is entitled to Social Security benefits. Each party must bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Disposition
The action was remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of Section 405(g).
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.