I can't confirm it but there's a report that Social Security is starting to track Seila Law objections to ALJs holding hearings and issuing decisions. This is going to be a nightmare if the Commissioner doesn't resign. Gambling on the Supreme Court finding that it's much more important for the President to manage the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that most people have never heard of, than the Social Security Administration which sends a monthly check to one person in five in this country sounds insane to me.
If you're an attorney representing Social Security claimants and you're not filing Seila Law objections you must have paid no attention to what happened with Lucia. I got a bunch of cases remanded because of Lucia. Did you? Don't miss the boat again.
If you're an attorney representing Social Security claimants and you're not filing Seila Law objections you must have paid no attention to what happened with Lucia. I got a bunch of cases remanded because of Lucia. Did you? Don't miss the boat again.
7 comments:
"We were told today that if, during the hearing or before, someone objected to the appointment of the sitting ALJ on this ground to let the HOCALJ know so a number can be complied for RO. Of note, no further guidance on how to handle the theoretical objection."
So, we should let the ALJ know that have also sent a copy of the objection to the HOCALJ and RO and provide the cc: letter to the electronic file.
Then the ALJ does not have to worry about doing any extra work for the Selia objection.
Selia has no bearing on Saul. He is not going to lose his job. Worst case scenario is that he loses protected status and can be fired at-will. Carry on, nothing to see here.
1:01 - Not so sure it's that cut-and-dry. The Dodd-Frank Act has a Severability Clause that made that outcome relatively simple in Seila Law. To my knowledge, the Social Security Act has no such severability provision.
My favorite is getting cases remanded to another ALJ b/c of Lucia :)
Yeah, but can you prove the first ALJ was not properly appointed, and ih he wasn't, how did that influence the decision?
7:22 No connection at all. ALJs pay little attention to the name on the hiring certificate. No new ALJs have been hired since Lucia was decided, and nothing about the adjudication process has changed since Lucia was decided. Lucia wasn't even meant to apply to SSA ALJs, based on the oral arguments.
Severability was relevant in the case of CFPB because the CFPB would not have been re-authorized if the entire agency had been ruled unconstitutional as a result of the Director's removal only for cause being ruled unconstitutional. Had the Supreme Court not accepted that this provision was severable and said that the Director and Agency both had to be ruled unconstitutional, the CFPB would likely have to be eliminated or reauthorized in a far weaker form because that is all that could be passed through a Republican Senate and signed by Trump. This is not so with SSA. If the position of COSS were ruled unconstitutional as a result of the ruling in Seila Law v. CFPB and the position of COSS was deemed not severable, Congress would re-authorize SSA with a COSS dismissible at will in less time than it takes to say "61 million beneficiaries and they all vote."
Post a Comment