There as finally been a decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case concerning the serious legal and constitutional issues presented by Social Security's reviews of prior decisions made in cases where Eric Conn had represented the claimant. This requires study but it appears to be good news for these claimants.
The 6th Circuit is, by a wide measure, the most conservative of the Courts of Appeals. If Social Security can't win there, they can't win. However, I would expect that the agency will ask that the case be reheard en banc, that is by all members of the Court, rather than by a three member panel as is usually the case.
2 comments:
Seems like a solid decision regarding the due process claims.
But the section on disparate treatment made me cringe. For one, it's unnecessary. To the extent the agency violated the due process clause, its decision was "contrary to law," answering the APA issue. Additionally, the "arbitrary and capricious" standard doesn't exist separate and apart from the "contrary to law" standard. The standard is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or OTHERWISE not in accordance with law," and Heckler v. Cheney made pretty clear that agencies can act as arbitrarily and capriciously as they'd like so long as they act within their discretion (i.e., so long as the don't violate the Constitution or laws). Finally, we should all stop behaving as though anything said in HALLEX is "law" within the meaning of the APA. It isn't, though SSA and its opponents in litigation often seem to forget this. I think the Court understood this last point, but by failing to be more explicit, I'm worried it's discussion of HALLEX is going to muddy the waters for many more years to come.
A Pyrrhic victory even if it stands after en banc review. The reports by Adkins, et al. can come in now, but then will simply be given zero weight by the redetermining ALJs and/or disregarded pursuant to SSRs 16-1/16-2.
Post a Comment