Rajo v. Commissioner, SSA, 21-1033

Deborah Rajo applied for disability insurance benefits alleging bipolar disorder, depression, fibromyalgia, and neck/back pain; SSA denied her claim and an ALJ issued an unfavorable decision after a 2016 hearing.
In 2018 a magistrate judge reversed and remanded the ALJ’s decision, finding the ALJ had not properly considered Ms. Rajo’s nonsevere mental impairments when assessing RFC.
On remand the ALJ held a new hearing (2019) and again denied benefits, finding fibromyalgia and degenerative disc disease severe but treating her mental conditions as nonsevere; the Appeals Council made the ALJ’s 2019 decision final.
In district court (2020) a magistrate judge affirmed the ALJ, concluding Rajo waived an Appointments Clause challenge by not raising it administratively, relying on this circuit’s Carr decision.
After the district court denied Rule 59(e) relief, the Supreme Court issued Carr v. Saul holding claimants need not administratively exhaust Appointments Clause challenges; the Tenth Circuit therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the Appointments Clause issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rajo waived an Appointments Clause challenge by failing to raise it before the agency	Rajo: waiver not applicable; she may raise the Appointments Clause in federal court	Commissioner: Rajo waived the claim by not exhausting it administratively (relying on Carr (10th Cir.))	Vacated and remanded — Supreme Court’s Carr v. Saul holds exhaustion not required, so Rajo may raise the claim in federal court
Whether the court should affirm on the Commissioner’s alternative merit-based ground (no appointments violation)	Rajo: the ALJ’s participation may have tainted adjudication such that relief is warranted (remedy is a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ)	Commissioner: ALJ had been properly appointed by the time of the 2019 proceedings; prior 2016 decision was vacated so no constitutional harm	Tenth Circuit declined to decide the merits and remanded for the district court to address the Appointments Clause claim with adversarial briefing and findings

Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (ALJs can be "Officers" under the Appointments Clause; remedy is a new hearing before a properly appointed official)
Carr v. Comm’r, SSA, 961 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2020) (held administrative exhaustion required for Appointments Clause challenges; later reversed by the Supreme Court)
Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021) (Supreme Court: claimants need not administratively exhaust Appointments Clause challenges)
Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2013) (discusses requirement that ALJ evaluate claimant’s physical and mental RFC)