Wilson v. Berryhill
Decision Date | 14 May 2019 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 18-4862 |
Citation | 379 F.Supp.3d 381 |
Parties | Lynnara WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Nancy BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Claire Grandison, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
M. Jared Littman, Michelle Scotese, SSA Office of General Counsel, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.
The notion that claims of legal error must be preserved at trial for appellate review is a bedrock tenet of our legal system. See, e.g., Judiciary Act § 25, 1 Stat 86 (); Crowell v. Randell, 35 U.S. 368, 391, 10 Pet. 368, 9 L.Ed. 458 (1836) ( ). Not only does it afford the presiding jurist an opportunity to prevent error, it arms a reviewing court with a full evidentiary and legal record to resolve appellate challenges. See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941) ( ); see also Fed. R. Evid. 103(a), Adv. Comm. Notes (discussing the requirements for claiming legal error with respect to an admission or exclusion of evidence). The justification for a timely challenge loses force, however, when raising such a claim would be futile and not achieve the intended goal of getting things right in the first place.
This case presents such a dilemma.
Petitioner Lynnara Wilson for the first time contends the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") was improperly appointed and therefore lacked legal authority to decide her case. See Pl. Br. (doc. 14-1) at 2–6 ( ). She concedes she failed to present her claim for error before the ALJ, which has prompted the Commissioner to seek summary denial of the Lucia claim because it was not timely raised and is nonjurisdictional. See Def. Resp. (doc. 17) at 5–15 ( ).
Although Wilson's Appointments Clause objection is nonjurisdictional, her claim merits consideration even though not raised below because it impacts the validity of the underlying proceeding, especially in the unique inquisitorial context of Social Security Administration ("SSA") proceedings. Further, Wilson raised her objection at the earliest possible opportunity after Lucia was decided, and was not required to preserve her Lucia claim by raising it at the initial administrative level of review. In any event, it would have been futile for Wilson to raise her claim before the ALJ because the ALJ was powerless to resolve it.1
Wilson's case is remanded to a different, constitutionally appointed ALJ. Since the ALJ's decision was a nullity based on Lucia, I need not address the merits of her additional claims because a new ALJ must conduct a de novo review on remand.2
Wilson received Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") during her childhood because of a learning disability. R. at 115–18, 138. When she turned eighteen, she was found no longer disabled. Id. Wilson appealed, and following several hearings, an SSA ALJ denied her claim. Id. at 11. Applying the five-step sequential analysis, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)–(v), the ALJ found Wilson was no longer disabled because she could perform jobs available in the national economy, R. at 23–24.
The Appeals Council denied Wilson's request for review, id. at 1–6, and Wilson filed this case,3 Compl. (doc. 2).
In 2012, an SEC ALJ found Lucia had violated certain securities laws. Lucia, 138 S.Ct. at 2049. On appeal to the SEC, Lucia argued the ALJ was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause because the ALJ was appointed by SEC staff members rather than the SEC. Id.; see also U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2 ( ); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam ) ( ).
After both the SEC and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Lucia's argument, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that SEC ALJs are inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause.4 Lucia, 138 S.Ct. at 2049, 2055. The Court also held Lucia's argument was "timely" because it had been raised "before the Commission[ ] and ... in the Court of Appeals and Court." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court concluded Lucia was entitled to a new hearing before a different, constitutionally appointed ALJ. Id.
Although Lucia decided the constitutional status of only SEC ALJs, the decision implicated the status of ALJs in other agencies, including the more than 1,600 ALJs at the SSA. See Br. of Nat'l Org. of Soc. Sec. Claimants' Reps., Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S.Ct. 2044 (No. 17-130) (April 2, 2018), at *1–2 ; see also Bandimere v. S.E.C., 844 F.3d 1168, 1200 (10th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2706, 201 L.Ed.2d 1101 (2018) (McKay, J., dissenting) ( ). Unlike the SEC which features an adversarial system, however, SSA ALJs differ in significant respects.
SSA ALJs oversee hearings to determine a claimant's eligibility for benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1). If the claimant receives an unfavorable decision from the ALJ, he may request review by the Appeals Council, 20 C.F.R. § 422.205(a), followed by review in United States District Court, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Although all ALJs preside over hearings, "[t]he differences between courts and agencies are nowhere more pronounced than in [SSA] proceedings."
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 110, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000). In other agencies, such as the SEC, litigants are required to present issues and arguments. See id. at 109–10, 120 S.Ct. 2080. In the Social Security context, however, the ALJ must investigate the facts and develop the record, considering "arguments both for and against granting benefits." Id. at 111, 120 S.Ct. 2080 (citation omitted); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.944. This distinction renders hearings before SSA ALJs "inquisitorial rather than adversarial." Sims, 530 U.S. at 110–11, 120 S.Ct. 2080 ; see also id. at 111–12, 120 S.Ct. 2080 ( ); 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(b) (). "Given that a large portion of [SSA] claimants ... have no representation," it makes good sense to employ such a model. Sims, 530 U.S. at 112, 120 S.Ct. 2080.
Until recently, SSA ALJs were appointed from a pool of applicants maintained by the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"). See Menoken v. McGettigan, 273 F Supp.3d 188, 192 (2017) (). Following Lucia, the President signed an Executive Order on July 10, 2018, directing that ALJs thereafter be hired by individual agencies, rather than from the OPM's central pool. Exec. Order No. 13,843, 83 Fed. Reg. 32755 (July 10, 2018). That Order changed the appointment process of ALJs prospectively, but did not affect the status of previously appointed ALJs. See id. "On July 16, 2018, the Acting Commissioner ratified the appointment of ALJs ... to address any Appointments Clause questions involving SSA claims."5 Soc. Sec. Admin., EM-180003 REV 2, Important Information Regarding Possible Challenges to the Appointment of Administrative Law Judges in SSA's Administrative Process—UPDATE (2/6/2018).
Before Lucia, and while Wilson was litigating her claims administratively, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") had argued that ALJs were mere employees, not inferior officers subject to constitutional appointment.6 See, e.g., Br. for Resp., Lucia v. S.E.C., 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (No. 15-1345), 2017 WL 1196122, at *1 ( ); see also Muhammad, No. 18-172, N.T. 10/16/18 at 6–8. While litigating Lucia in the Supreme Court, however, the DOJ changed its position, conceding that ALJs were inferior officers. See Reply Br. for Resp. Supporting Pets., Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S.Ct. 2044 (2018) (No. 17-130), 2018 WL 1806836, at *1 ; see also Memo. from the Sol. Gen. to Agency Gen. Counsels at 3 ().
The Commissioner concedes that SSA ALJs are inferior officers who must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause. See Def. Resp. at 5 n.1 (); SSR 19-1p, 2019 WL 1202036, at *9583 (Mar. 15, 2019) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vanhorn v. Saul, Civil Action Number 7:19-cv-00528-AKK
...he "raised his Appointments Clause objection at the 'earliest possible opportunity' after Lucia was decided"); Wilson v. Berryhill, 379 F. Supp. 3d 381, 385 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (same). 6. VanHorn further testified that his employer "refused to allow [him] to return to work and placed [him] on F......
-
Hill v. Saul
...No. 16-5434, 2018 WL 7585561, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2018) (finding Appointments Clause challenge waived); with Wilson v. Berryhill, 379 F. Supp. 3d 381, 388 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (remanding); with Culclasure v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 375 F. Supp. 3d 559, 573-74 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (finding cl......
-
Marant v. Saul
...2019 WL 1934874 (E.D.Pa. April 30, 2019) (C.A. 19-2519 - appeal filed June 28, 2019, stay order entered July 26, 2019); Wilson v. Berryhill, 379 F. Supp.3d 381 (E.D. Pa.) (C.A. 19-2639 - appeal filed July 19, 2019, stay order entered Sept. 17, 2019); Kellett v. Berryhill, Civ. No. 18-4757, ......
-
Davis v. Kijakazi
... ... Eastern District of Pennsylvania, let alone the Third ... Circuit. Compare Muhammad v. Berryhill, 381 ... F.Supp.3d 462, 471 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (holding that plaintiff ... forfeited his Appointments Clause claim due to failure to ... 16-5434, ... 2018 WL 7585561, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2018) (finding ... Appointments Clause challenge waived); with Wilson v ... Berryhill, 379 F.Supp.3d 381, 388 (E.D. Pa. 2019) ... (remanding); with Culclasure v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec ... Admin., 375 ... ...