Wiley v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2019cv00375 - Document 18 (S.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY granting 17 Joint Motion to Remand. IT IS SO ORDERED: The Commissioner's non-disability finding is vacated; No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff, Joy Wiley, was under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act; This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Carr v. Saul, 141 S.Ct. 1352 (2021), for further consideration consistent with this Decision and Entry; and The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr on 12/29/2021. (bjr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wiley v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 18 Case: 3:19-cv-00375-PBS Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/29/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 822 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON JOY WILEY, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY : ADMINISTRATION, : : Defendant. : Case No. 3:19-cv-375 Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. (by consent of the parties) DECISION AND ENTRY This social security case is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Brief on Issue of Lucia (Doc. #16) and the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand. (Doc. #17). Previously, the Court had requested briefing in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). In Lucia, the Supreme Court determined that the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) qualified as “Officers of the United States,” therefore being subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Id. at 2053-55. As the SEC ALJs were appointed by a staff member and not the President, a Court of Law, or a Head of the Department, the Court held their appointment to be unconstitutional. Id. The Supreme Court also found that the “appropriate” remedy for an adjudication tainted with such a violation is a “new hearing before a properly appointed official.” Id. at 2055. (quoting Ryder v. U.S., 115 S.Ct. 2031, 2033 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the analogous means of appointing Social Security Administration (“SSA”) ALJs, the Supreme Court recently applied Lucia’s holding to SSA ALJs in Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352, 1356 (2021). In so holding, the Supreme Court also found that administrative issue exhaustion of Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:19-cv-00375-PBS Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/29/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 823 Appointments Clause challenges is not required in social security claims. Id. As a result, plaintiffs need not challenge the constitutionality of a SSA ALJ’s appointment while the case is at the administrative level but may raise it for the first time while the case is pending before the federal courts. Id. In response to this Court’s Order for briefing on the matter, both the Commissioner and Plaintiff agree that a remand pursuant to Lucia is appropriate. (Doc. #s 16, 17). In this case, Plaintiff’s hearing was held on March 23, 2018 before ALJ Stuart Adkins. (Doc. #8, PageID #135). Like the ALJ in Lucia, ALJ Adkins was not appointed by the President, a court of law, or a head of department at the time of Plaintiff’s hearing and, therefore, was not a properly appointed official. See Lucia, 138 S.Ct. at 2053; Soc. Sec. R. 19-1p, 2019 WL 1324866 (Soc. Sec. Admin. March 15, 2019). As a result, Plaintiff’s current appointments challenge represents a constitutional defect that warrants the remedy prescribed by the Supreme Court: remand for a new hearing before a new, constitutionally appointed ALJ. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the undersigned stresses the intended goals of Lucia’s remedy—to support the structural purposes of the Appointments Clause and “to create ‘[]incentive[s] to raise Appointments Clause challenges.’” Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at fn.5 (quoting Ryder, 115 S.Ct. at 2033). That is, in specifying that the claim should be remanded to a different ALJ, the Supreme Court explained that “the old judge would have no reason to think he did anything wrong on the merits … and so could be expected to reach all the same judgments.” Id. Thus, in light of these principles, on remand, the new ALJ should be sure to render her de novo decision completely independent of any previous finding by ALJ Adkins. Based on the foregoing, the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. #17) is GRANTED. 2 Case: 3:19-cv-00375-PBS Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/29/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 824 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Commissioner’s non-disability finding is vacated; 2. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Joy Wiley was under a “disability” within the meaning of the Social Security Act; 3. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Carr v. Saul, 141 S.Ct. 1352 (2021), for further consideration consistent with this Decision and Entry; and 4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr. December 29, 2021 Peter B. Silvain, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 3
]]>
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.
