60 F.4th 735
4th Cir.2023Background
- Camille Brooks applied for Social Security disability benefits (filed 2015; alleged onset June 2014); ALJ Bright denied her claim in March 2018 after a January 2018 hearing.
- While Brooks’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC (June 2018), holding that ALJs are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause and that unlawfully appointed ALJs require a new hearing before a properly appointed officer.
- The Commissioner ratified SSA ALJ appointments post-Lucia; the Appeals Council vacated the 2018 ALJ decision in October 2018 and remanded to ALJ Bright on a merits basis (not on Appointments Clause grounds).
- ALJ Bright, now post-ratification, held a new hearing and again denied Brooks’s claim in April 2019; the Appeals Council denied review and that decision became final.
- Brooks sued in federal court challenging (1) vocational expert treatment, (2) consideration of mental limitations, and (3) the Appointments Clause issue under Lucia; the district court affirmed the 2019 decision.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded solely on Appointments Clause grounds: because the same ALJ who acted without constitutional authority in 2018 again adjudicated the claim in 2019, Brooks must receive a new, plenary hearing before a different, properly appointed ALJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vocational expert conflict | ALJ failed to explain weight given to conflicting VE testimony | ALJ reasonably relied on VE; district court and Agency supported that finding | Not decided on merits — merits left unresolved because case vacated and remanded for new hearing |
| Mental limitations in RFC | ALJ omitted Brooks’s mild mental limits when assessing RFC | ALJ adequately accounted for mental limitations in RFC | Not decided on merits — vacated and remanded due to Appointments Clause defect |
| Appointments Clause / Lucia remedy | Brooks: 2018 unconstitutional ALJ appointment tainted 2019 decision because same ALJ adjudicated again; she is entitled to a new hearing before a different ALJ | Commissioner: ALJ was properly ratified before 2019 decision and Appeals Council vacatur on merits cured any defect; no special remedy needed | Held for Brooks: Lucia requires a new hearing before a different, properly appointed ALJ; because the same ALJ issued both flawed and post-ratification decisions, the 2019 decision is tainted — case vacated and remanded for a new plenary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (ALJs are inferior officers under Appointments Clause; remedy is new hearing before properly appointed official)
- Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021) (claimants need not exhaust Appointments Clause challenges before SSA to preserve them for federal court)
- Cody v. Kijakazi, 48 F.4th 956 (9th Cir. 2022) (post-Lucia: remand required to a different ALJ where same ALJ issued both pre- and post-ratification decisions)
- Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (framework for determining when officials are Officers of the United States)
- Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995) (Appointments Clause protects structural integrity of appointment power)
- Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: uphold ALJ if correct legal standards and substantial evidence support the decision)