JOYCE RAMSEY (19-1579); JOSEPH FORTIN (19-1581); MICHAEL SHOOPS (19-1586); ANTHONY HUTCHINS (19- 1889); VICKY HARRIS (19-1977); SUSAN FLACK (19- 3886) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY - Articles

All Content

JOYCE RAMSEY (19-1579); JOSEPH FORTIN (19-1581); MICHAEL SHOOPS (19-1586); ANTHONY HUTCHINS (19- 1889); VICKY HARRIS (19-1977); SUSAN FLACK (19- 3886) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 1, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: David F. Chermol, CHERMOL & FISHMAN, LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants Ramsey, Fortin, Shoops, and Harris. Mahesha P. Subbaraman, SUBBARAMAN PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellant Flack.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Joshua M. Salzman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Mahesha P. Subbaraman, SUBBARAMAN PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Carol Herdman, HERDMAN YEAGER LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant Flack. Jason M. Turkish, Ryan T. Kaiser, Melissa M. Nyman, NYMAN TURKISH PC, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellants Ramsey, Fortin, Shoops, and Harris. Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES E. BINDER AND HARRY J. BINDER, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant Hutchins.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Kevin M. Parrington, Luis Pere, Christopher L. Potter, Lisa G. Smoller, Timothy S. Bolen, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, Meghan O’Callaghan, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SILER, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit and United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Social Security disability benefit and supplemental security income benefit claimants (“claimants”) appeal from district court orders rejecting their Appointments Clause challenges to the administrative law judges (ALJ) who heard their cases, on the basis that they forfeited the issue by not raising it during their administrative proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we VACATE the judgments of the district courts and REMAND these consolidated cases to the Social Security Administration for new hearings before constitutionally appointed ALJs other than the ALJs who presided over claimants’ first hearings.

Attachments: