Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Krajick
- 7:19-cv-05474-NSR-AEK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Krajick remanded the case for a new hearing and decision before a different administrative law judge.
Lawyer and the Social Security Administration are affected: the case returns to the agency for evaluation by a different administrative law judge, an offered hearing, and a new decision.
What happened
Lawyer challenged a Social Security Administration decision, and the parties’ stipulation addressed a constitutional issue involving the appointment of the administrative law judge. The opinion says the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul allowed a claimant to raise that issue for the first time in federal court.
The court ordered the case sent back to the Commissioner of Social Security under a provision of federal law known as sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The judgment does not describe the underlying benefits decision in detail.
The court ordered a different administrative law judge to further evaluate Lawyer’s claims, provide an opportunity for a hearing, and issue a new decision. Judge Ruby J. Krajick entered the judgment on June 4, 2021.
The detailed version
- Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-05474-NSR-AEK
- Krajick
- June 4, 2021
Background
The judgment concerns Lawyer’s action against Andrew M. Saul, identified in the caption as Commissioner of Social Security. The court stated that the judgment followed the parties’ stipulation and order dated June 4, 2021.
The stated issue involved the Appointments Clause, the constitutional provision governing the appointment of certain federal officials, including administrative law judges. The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that a claimant did not have to raise an Appointments Clause challenge before the Social Security Administration and could instead raise it for the first time in federal court.
Ruling
The court remanded, or sent back, the action to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the case must be assigned to a different administrative law judge. Lawyer must be offered an opportunity for a hearing, and the administrative law judge must further evaluate the claims and issue a new decision.
The judgment does not state what the new decision must be or resolve the underlying eligibility or benefits questions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.