From the Court's summary of the 9th Circuit's decision in Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, decided on April 27, 2022:
... Claimant challenged the constitutionality of the statute that governed the President’s removal authority over the Commissioner, and the district court’s grant of the Commissioner’s Rule 59(e) motion. ...
The panel ... held that the President possessed the authority to remove the Commissioner of Social Security at will.
The final question was the appropriate remedy for claimant, whose appeal to the Appeals Council was denied while Commissioner Saul served under an unconstitutional removal provision. ...
... Because claimant did not show that the removal provision caused her any actual harm, the panel upheld the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for benefits. ...
3 comments:
So what was actually being challenged by the claimant?
How would the removal of the commissioner have any effect on her disability decision?
@1:27pm
"...claimant’s assertion that the unconstitutional removal provision affected the “expected value” of claimant’s claim because the Commissioner theoretically could act in more ways than he could have without the removal restriction."
The claimant argued that the ALJ and AC's denial/refusal to review were affected by the Commissioner (either of whom were acting) serving under the impression that they could be removed only for "...neglect of duty or malfeasance in office", instead of the wide range of removal powers generally given to the President.
So in short, because Berryhill and Saul were acting as if they could only be removed for neglect or malfeasance, this in turned biased any ALJ or AAJ that decide the disability claim, even if the ALJ or AAJ was one before Berryhill or Saul. The claimant believed that if the Commissioner were more afraid of losing their job at the displeasure of the President, her claim would have been more favorable.
@1:27
In sum, the argument was that Commissioners beholden to the political whims of the president could be more inclined to institute more favorable influence on ALJs. Then again, those whims cut both ways. I would probably say dem presidential administrations are actually slightly more claimant-adverse based on past experience, but overall, SSA seems relatively free from political influence regardless.
Both parties say that the system is full of fraud and we need to crack down on it, when it's absurd to suggest claimants are able generally to jump through dozens of hurdles, tricking the state agencies generally twice, tricking at least 1 CE, their treaters, ALJs, etc. It's just an absurdly redundant process which, while there are some instances (like Conn) where tricksters get benefits when they don't deserve them, it's also curable through overpayment in the vast majority of cases, particularly if the wrongful recipient can have their RIB seized.
So arguing that ALJs would be more favorable if they are beholden to the politics of the president doesn't seem to have much of a basis in my opinion.
Post a Comment