Halbert v. SSA
7:23-cv-00085
E.D. Ky.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Janet Halbert, a former client of attorney Eric C. Conn, originally received disability insurance benefits (DIB) in 2007 based on a favorable SSA ALJ decision.
- Conn and ALJ Daugherty were later found to be involved in a massive disability fraud scheme; in response, SSA flagged thousands of Conn client cases, including Halbert’s, for redetermination.
- After a 2016 SSA hearing, ALJ Dowling denied Halbert's disability claim, but the Appeals Council later vacated this decision and remanded the case.
- Following a new hearing in 2023, ALJ Labrum denied Halbert’s claim again, determining she was not disabled during the relevant period.
- On federal court appeal, Halbert only challenged the 2016 (vacated) decision, not the 2023 final decision.
- The Court denied her appeal, finding there was nothing to review since she did not make any arguments about the final, appealable decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial review of ALJ decision | Only attacked the 2016 Dowling decision | 2016 decision not final; 2023 decision is what controls | 2016 decision not reviewable; must review 2023 decision |
| Substantial evidence for disability | Dowling wrongly rejected Dr. Mann's opinion in 2016 | Challenge must concern the 2023 decision, where Dr. Mann's opinion was treated differently | No review possible without arguments on 2023 decision |
| Arguments on proper final decision | Made no arguments regarding the 2023 Labrum decision | Plaintiff waived any challenge to the 2023 decision | Court will not formulate arguments on plaintiff’s behalf |
| Waiver of arguments in briefing | (No reply brief filed; ignored defense’s arguments) | Plaintiff has waived any arguments not raised in the opening brief | Arguments on 2023 decision waived and not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 909 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2018) (discussing the SSA redetermination process and Conn fraud cases)
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard)
- Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994) (substantial evidence is relevance, not volume)
- Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011) (failure to follow applicable law defeats substantial evidence)
- Kuhn v. Washtenaw Cnty., 709 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2013) (arguments not raised in opening briefs are waived)