Pages

Jan 31, 2018

Social Security Starting To Respond To Supreme Court Case On ALJ Constitutionality

     From Emergency Message EM-18003:
This emergency message directs administrative law judges (ALJs) to acknowledge Appointments Clause arguments raised in connection with the appeal of an administrative action without discussing or making any findings on any such arguments. This message also provides instructions in the Case Processing and Management System (CPMS) and the Appeals Review Processing System (ARPS) for flagging cases in which claimants or representatives raise such arguments. ...
[F]our plaintiffs challenging their denials of benefits in Social Security Administration (SSA) cases have raised in one district court the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA’s ALJs are appointed. The district court has stayed the Appointments Clause issue pending action by the Supreme Court in Lucia and Bandimere [the Supreme Court cases concerning SEC ALJs], while litigation of the disability issues in the cases proceed....If a claimant or representative challenges at a hearing the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs ...
What will an adjudicator do if a claimant or representative challenges the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs?
    1. Challenge made orally at the Hearing level
      If a claimant or representative challenges at a hearing the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs,
      ALJs will only respond, “the hearing decision [/dismissal] will acknowledge that the argument was raised.” Because SSA lacks the authority to finally decide constitutional issues such as these.
      ALJs will not discuss or make any findings related to the Appointments Clause issue on the record.

      When issuing the hearing decision or dismissal, ALJs will acknowledge that the issue was raised by adding the following language “The claimant[/representative] also raised a challenge to the manner in which I was appointed as an administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause to the Constitution. I do not have the authority to rule on that challenge and do not address it further in this decision[/dismissal].”
    2. Challenge made in writing at the hearing level
      If a claimant or representative challenges in writing the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs,
      ALJs will acknowledge that the issue was raised by adding the following language to the hearing decision or dismissal “The claimant[/claimant’s representative] also raised a challenge to the manner in which I was appointed as an administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause to the Constitution. I do not have the authority to rule on that challenge and do not address it further in this decision[/dismissal].”
      ALJs will not otherwise discuss or make any findings related to the Appointments Clause issue.
    3. Challenge made at the Appeals Council (AC) level

      As challenges of the constitutionality of the appointment of SSA’s ALJs are outside the purview of the administrative adjudication, the AC will not acknowledge, make findings related to, or otherwise discuss the Appointments Clause issue. ..
If a claimant or representative raises an Appointments Clause issue, Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) and Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) staff will flag the case in CPMS and ARPS by adding the case characteristic “LUCI,” which can be found in both systems under the “Other” case characteristic type.
ALJs who receive appointment clause objections will notify hearing office management. Hearing office management will either add the LUCI case characteristic in CPMS or delegate to staff to do so....

12 comments:

  1. I do not like the idea of the arguments raised in these SC cases. I think that the administrative judicial process needs to be independent of the political process. However, is there some consensus as to whether attys/reps need or should be raising this objection on behalf of their clients to reserve appeals rights?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure what the point is of even raising the issue? You ask for a hearing, and then argue that the ALJ is not able to issue sound decision? So withdraw the request for hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. very dangerous for attorneys to challenge the constitutionality of the ALJs during the hearings. This is what Trump wants; statistics showing that even attorneys acknowledge these judges as illegitimate. Objecting opens a Pandora's Box that will impact the ability of the federal agencies to function; the goal of the GOP is to create as much agency dysfunction as possible so they can argue that the government agencies/programs don't work, making it easier for them to shut the programs down. I don't intend to object as doing so isn't in the interest of our clients because it places the functioning of the entire program at risk while threatening to cede more political power to Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ 2:22 The claimant requests a hearing. However they aren't necessarily requesting a hearing held by an ALJ. An ALJ is what's offered as part of the hearing level appeal.

    It would be nice if ALJ's had SOME kind of medical background or training. I currently don't believe ALJ's are qualified to make determinations as to whether a claimant is disabled/not disabled. Yet ALJ's are handed 1000's of pages of medical evidence that they interpret. They interpret this information with what qualifications?

    I believe ALJ's should be appointed and have to have medical training before being allowed to render decisions. This also goes for DDS examiners.

    OR

    SSA could simply accept the word of the PDOC, like they should in the first place.

    This is all SSA's fault, and I don't feel bad for them in the least.

    They are the only disability program which allows for a non medical employee to override a doctors opinion. ABSURD!

    ReplyDelete
  5. 6:57 - you really don't understand the program at all, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @9:47:

    You know, you’re right. @6:57 understands the SSDI program EXTREMELY WELL! Your remark strongly indicates you do not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey 6:57 is right. Why do we need an independent judiciary at all. Let's let the doctors decide everything. They are never wrong about anything.

    I don't think we even need juries in civil trials anymore. Just let an "expert" decide everything.

    I can't believe they let 12 ordinary citizens pass judgment on the police when they arrest someone. The police are experts in law enforcement, just let them decide whom to imprison.

    ReplyDelete
  8. WTF?! Government ✓its what they do. Stumble bumble decisions for the wrong reasons. What government agency isn't self absorbed at the top.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wasteful understaffed backlogged wouldn't expect anything less from federal government agency. Their bosses are Congress so...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Standard for federal agency. Their bosses are Congress so...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes let's let medical experts decide. Over at recon. Is that what you really want?

    ReplyDelete