Summary
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order remanding Lydia Galvez’s Social Security disability benefits claim based on an Appointments Clause violation. The court held that a subsequent decision by a different Administrative Law Judge is not automatically tainted merely because it incorporates similar or identical language from an earlier decision; the relevant inquiry is whether the new decision reflects an independent assessment following a de novo process. The court concluded that the new ALJ’s decision was independent and remanded for consideration of the merits of Galvez’s claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a decision issued by a different, properly appointed Social Security ALJ is still tainted by a prior Appointments Clause violation merely because it incorporates some language or findings from an earlier tainted decision.
- What procedures and indicia establish that a newly assigned ALJ provided the independent, de novo assessment required to remedy an Appointments Clause violation.
- Whether ALJ Meyers's 2022 decision reflected the required independent assessment of Galvez's claim.
Holdings
- A newly assigned ALJ's decision is not automatically tainted merely because it contains similar or identical text from a prior decision issued after an Appointments Clause violation. The court must evaluate the new decision as a whole to determine whether it reflects the newly assigned ALJ's independent assessment and fresh look at the claim.
- To remedy the violation, the claim must be decided by a different ALJ after a de novo hearing that provides an opportunity for the newly assigned ALJ to independently consider the claimant's credibility and the merits. The precise procedures may vary with the posture and subject matter of the case and need not recreate the entire evidentiary record.
- ALJ Meyers's 2022 decision was an independent, de novo decision that cured the prior Appointments Clause violation.
Key quotations
“Some similar, or even identical, text in a subsequent decision is not automatically disqualifying. Rather, a district court’s inquiry should focus on whether the new decision as a whole reflects that the newly assigned ALJ provided the independent assessment that Cody requires.” (12)
“A different ALJ is necessary to cure such violations, but it is not enough.” (13)
“To assess the independence of a decision issued under the circumstances discussed here, district courts should first verify that the new decision complies with Lucia’s requirement that it be issued by a different ALJ.” (15)
Factual background
Galvez sought disability benefits for the period beginning in 2008, citing fibromyalgia, chronic shoulder injuries, depression, and resulting inability to perform her prior work as a certified nurse assistant. After multiple administrative hearings and remands, ALJ Meyers held additional hearings, received new testimony and evidence, evaluated additional expert opinions, and issued a 2022 decision finding Galvez not disabled from 2008 through December 31, 2018. Although that decision incorporated or resembled portions of an earlier decision issued by an ALJ whose prior appointment had not been properly ratified, ALJ Meyers reached different intermediate conclusions, assigned different weights to some opinions, and adopted a different residual functional capacity.
Procedural history
Galvez filed claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income based on disability beginning in 2008. An ALJ denied the claims in 2013, and the district court remanded in 2017 for further consideration of fibromyalgia. The original ALJ issued another denial in 2019 after his appointment had been ratified, and a later stipulated remand resulted in proceedings before a different ALJ, who held additional hearings and issued a 2022 decision. The district court concluded that the 2022 decision remained tainted because it incorporated portions of the earlier decisions and ordered another de novo hearing; the Ninth Circuit reversed that conclusion and remanded for consideration of the merits.
Remand instructions
The district court must consider Galvez's substantive challenges to ALJ Meyers's 2022 decision on the merits.