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.