ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Jul 9, 2025

Circuit Court of Appeals hold that, under the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to a new hearing before a different administrative law judge

Plaintiff appealed the United States District Court’s granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security [SSA].

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled that as hearing officer who had  presided at Plaintiff’s initial SSA hearing not been properly appointed when he had  conducted the hearing regarding [Plaintiff’s] application for Social Security benefits and issued a decision denying her benefits, Plaintiff “is entitled to a new plenary hearing on her disability benefits [claim] before a different, properly appointed" SSA Administrative Law Judge.

The United States District Court had remanded Plaintiff’s case “on the merits” to SSA for a new hearing before a different ALJ.  Plaintiff, however, appeared before the same SSA Administrative Law Judge who had presided at Plaintiff's initial administrate hearing for the new, second administrative hearing. 

The Circuit Court observing that Plaintiff’s application was to be heard “by a different adjudicator”, held that as SSA did not provide Plaintiff a different hearing officer to hear Plaintiff's claim, this “rendered the Commissioner’s final decision” a violation of the "appointments clause".

Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s application for Social Security benefits, the Second Circuit vacated SSA's "final decision" and directed the district court “to REMAND the matter to the Commissioner for a de novo hearing" on Plaintiff’ disability benefits claim before a different, validly appointed SSA administrative law judge.

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court’s decision posted on the Internet.



NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com