O'Dell v. Social Securtiy Administration
2:19-cv-00054
M.D. Tenn.Sep 9, 2019Background
- Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income; an ALJ denied benefits and Plaintiff raised a timely Appointment Clause challenge to that ALJ’s appointment.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Commissioner moved to reverse and remand under sentence four, relying on SSR 19-1p (issued after Lucia).
- SSR 19-1p directs that, when an Appointment Clause challenge was timely raised, the Appeals Council on remand will either (a) remand to a different ALJ for a new hearing or (b) issue a new decision covering the period before the ALJ’s decision.
- Plaintiff did not oppose remand but objected to remand to the Appeals Council, asking instead for an order directing a new hearing before a different ALJ (or an explanation of how SSA will ensure a constitutionally valid hearing).
- Magistrate Judge Holmes found Plaintiff’s request premature, accepted the Commissioner’s reading of Lucia and SSR 19-1p, and recommended reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the case to the Appeals Council for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand under § 405(g) is appropriate after a timely Appointment Clause challenge | O’Dell agrees remand is appropriate but asks the court to order a new ALJ hearing rather than remanding to the Appeals Council | Commissioner agrees remand is appropriate and asks for remand to the Appeals Council under SSR 19-1p | Remand under sentence four of § 405(g) is warranted; court recommends remand to the Appeals Council |
| Whether the court should bypass SSR 19-1p/Appeals Council and require a new ALJ hearing now | Urges the court to order a new hearing before a different ALJ to guarantee a constitutionally valid hearing and avoid speculative delay | SSA contends SSR 19-1p allows Appeals Council to either remand to a new ALJ or decide the case itself; court should follow the agency procedure first | Court declines to bypass Appeals Council; plaintiff’s request is premature and speculative |
| Deference to SSA policy guidance (SSR 19-1p) and Lucia’s remedial scope | Argues SSR 19-1p is merely sub-regulatory and should not control remedy | SSA argues Lucia permits remand for a new ALJ hearing or agency decision; SSR 19-1p is entitled to deference | Court gives substantial deference to SSR 19-1p and finds remand to Appeals Council appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (held ALJs are "Officers" under the Appointment Clause; remedy is remand for a new hearing or agency decision)
- Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (agency policy interpretations are entitled to substantial deference unless plainly erroneous)
- Ferguson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 628 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2010) (Social Security rulings do not have the force of law)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge reports and waiver of appellate review)
- Cowherd v. Milton, 380 F.3d 909 (6th Cir. 2004) (reaffirming waiver doctrine for failure to timely object to magistrate judge recommendations)
- Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 14 F. Supp. 3d 954 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (summarizing administrative exhaustion steps for social security judicial review)