Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security
- 7:17-cv-10050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court reversed and remanded the case; no judge is identified in the opinion.
Plaintiff Shaneladen and the Commissioner of Social Security; the Appeals Council and a different Administrative Law Judge must conduct further proceedings.
What happened
In Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court reviewed the Social Security case after Plaintiff raised a claim under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which concerns how certain officials are appointed.
The court ordered the case sent back to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. The Appeals Council must assign the case to a different Administrative Law Judge, provide Plaintiff with a new hearing opportunity, and issue a new decision.
The court reversed and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul. The opinion does not identify the judge; the judgment was entered by Clerk of Court Ruby J. Krajick.
The detailed version
- Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:17-cv-10050
- June 9, 2021
Background
Plaintiff Shaneladen brought this Social Security action against Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff raised an Appointments Clause claim in federal court. The opinion states that the case was governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Saul, which held that a claimant does not have to raise an Appointments Clause claim before the Social Security agency and may raise it for the first time in federal court.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Appeals Council must assign Plaintiff’s case to a different Administrative Law Judge, offer Plaintiff a new hearing, and issue a new decision.
Disposition
The judgment was dated June 9, 2021. The opinion does not identify a judicial author; it identifies Ruby J. Krajick as Clerk of Court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.