Brown v. Kijakazi, No. 20-35533 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
After two administrative hearings, Brown was awarded disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits by an ALJ, who concluded that, as of April 25, 2018, Brown was “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(i), 423(d), 1382c(a)(3)(A), but rejected Brown’s claim that he was disabled prior to that date. The district court upheld the ALJ’s decision.
The Ninth Circuit remanded with instructions to set aside the ALJ’s determination and to conduct a new disability hearing before a different, and properly appointed ALJ. The ALJ who conducted Brown’s hearings was not appointed in conformity with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Because this proceeding did not arise from a direct appeal from a decision of one or more invalidly appointed officers, nor was it a direct petition for review that might similarly have brought the entirety of the administrative decision before the court, the Commissioner may not challenge the portions of that decision that are favorable to Brown. The court held that it had no authority under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). to set aside, or to disturb, the grant of benefits for the time period on or after April 25, 2018,
Court Description: Social Security. The panel remanded this case to the district court with instructions to remand to the Social Security Administration with instructions to set aside the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)’s determination that the claimant was not disabled before April 25, 2018, and to conduct a new disability hearing before a different, and properly appointed ALJ. Claimant was awarded disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits by an ALJ who concluded that, as of April 25, 2018, claimant was disabled under the Social Security Act. Claimant filed a civil action, pursuant to § 205(g) of the Act, challenging the ALJ’s rejection of claimant’s claim that he was disabled prior to April 25, 2018. The district court upheld the ALJ’s decision. Claimant contends that the ALJ who conducted his hearings had not been appointed in conformity with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Commissioner of Social Security did not object to a remand for a new hearing before a different ALJ. The panel agreed that, under the circumstances of this case, a remand to the agency for a new hearing was warranted. The panel rejected the Commissioner’s assertion that this court should remand for a new decision on the entirety of claimant’s claim, including the decision to award benefits as BROWN V. KIJAKAZI 3 of April 25, 2018. This proceeding did not arise from a direct appeal from a decision of one or more invalidly appointed officers, nor was it a direct petition for review that might similarly have brought the entirety of the administrative decision before the court. Rather, the statutory procedural vehicle for seeking judicial review of a social security decision is a civil complaint filed in the district court, asserting the statutory cause of action against the Commissioner that is provided in § 205(g) of the Act. The statute does not provide the Commissioner a cause of action to challenge the portions of his own decision that are favorable to the claimant. Given that only the claimant can file an action under § 205(g), the relief requested will necessarily be limited to only those aspects of the case that were unfavorable to the claimant. The complaint in this case asked for review of the ALJ’s denial of benefits for the period from September 28, 2013, through April 24, 2018, and specifically added that the finding of disability since April 25, 2018, should not be disturbed. The panel held that it had no authority to set aside, or to disturb, the Commissioner’s grant of benefits for the time period on or after April 25, 2018, because that was never placed at issue prior to the entry of judgment below.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.