Serrano v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Carmen Serrano sued the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of an administrative law judge’s denial of her disability benefits. The court later granted Serrano’s request for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration for a new hearing before a properly appointed administrative law judge. Serrano’s challenge argued that the administrative law judge had not been appointed consistently with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

After the remand, Serrano sought $8,525.20 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The EAJA generally permits a court to award fees to a prevailing party in litigation against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unfair.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended denying Serrano’s fee motion. Neither party objected to the recommendation. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed it for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed that Serrano was a prevailing party because the remand changed the legal relationship between her and the Commissioner. A court-ordered remand for further consideration qualifies a Social Security claimant as a prevailing party for EAJA purposes.

The court nevertheless concluded that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified. The Commissioner had argued that Serrano forfeited her Appointments Clause challenge by failing to raise it during the administrative proceedings. The court stated that “substantially justified” means having a reasonable basis in law and fact.

When the Commissioner made that argument, the Supreme Court had not yet decided whether claimants could raise Appointments Clause challenges for the first time in district court. The Second Circuit had not addressed the issue, courts were divided, and several courts had agreed with the Commissioner’s position. The Supreme Court later held in Carr v. Saul that claimants could raise such challenges in district court even if they had not raised them before the agency. The later decision did not change the court’s conclusion that the Commissioner’s earlier position had been reasonable when made.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full. Serrano’s motion for attorney fees was denied, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.