Social Security Ruling 19-1p; Titles II and XVI: Effect of the Decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) On Cases Pending at the Appeals Council, 9582-9584 [2019-04817]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
9582
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2019 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2019–04800 Filed 3–14–19; 8:45 am]
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Disaster Declaration #15890 and #15891;
Alabama Disaster Number AL–00094]
Presidential Declaration of a Major
Disaster for the State of Alabama
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This is a Notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alabama
(FEMA–4419–DR), dated 03/05/2019.
Incident: Severe Storms, Straight-line
Winds, and Tornadoes.
Incident Period: 03/03/2019.
DATES: Issued on 03/05/2019.
Physical Loan Application Deadline
Date: 05/06/2019.
Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan
Application Deadline Date: 12/05/2019.
ADDRESS: Submit completed loan
applications to: U.S. Small Business
Administration, Processing and
Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.
Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050,
Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that as a result of the
President’s major disaster declaration on
03/05/2019, applications for disaster
loans may be filed at the address listed
above or other locally announced
locations. The following areas have been
determined to be adversely affected by
the disaster:
Primary Counties (Physical Damage and
Economic Injury Loans): Lee
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury
Loans Only):
Alabama: Chambers, Macon, Russell,
Tallapoosa.
Georgia: Harris, Muscogee.
The Interest Rates are:
SUMMARY:
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES
Percent
For Physical Damage:
Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere ......................
Homeowners without Credit
Available Elsewhere ..............
Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere ......................
Businesses
without
Credit
Available Elsewhere ..............
Non-Profit Organizations with
Credit Available Elsewhere ...
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Mar 14, 2019
security income, and special veterans
benefits programs. We may base SSRs
Non-Profit Organizations withon determinations or decisions made at
out Credit Available Elseall levels of administrative adjudication,
where .....................................
2.750 Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s
For Economic Injury:
decisions, opinions of the Office of the
Businesses & Small Agricultural
General Counsel, or other
Cooperatives without Credit
Available Elsewhere ..............
4.000 interpretations of the law and
regulations.
Non-Profit Organizations withAlthough SSRs do not have the same
out Credit Available Elsewhere .....................................
2.750 force and effect as statutes or
regulations, they are binding on all
The number assigned to this disaster
components of the Social Security
for physical damage is 15890C and for
Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
economic injury is 158910.
This SSR will remain in effect until
we publish a notice in the Federal
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Register that rescinds it, or we publish
Number 59008)
a new SSR that replaces or modifies it.
Percent
BILLING CODE 8011–01–C
4.125
Rafaela Monchek,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2019–04939 Filed 3–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No. SSA–2019–0001]
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security Ruling
AGENCY:
(SSR).
We are giving notice of SSR
19–1p. This ruling explains how we will
adjudicate cases pending at the Appeals
Council in which the claimant has
raised a timely challenge to the
appointment of an administrative law
judge (ALJ) under the Appointments
Clause of the United States Constitution
in light of the Supreme Court’s recent
2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC.
DATES: We will apply this notice on
March 15, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Chung, Office of Appellate
Operations, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, Virginia, (703) 605–7100. For
information on eligibility or filing for
benefits, call our national toll-free
number 1–800–772–1213, or TTY
1–800–325–0778, or visit our internet
site, Social Security online, at https://
www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUMMARY:
Although
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not
2.063
require us to publish this SSR, we are
8.000 doing so under 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Through SSRs, we make available to
4.000 the public precedential decisions
relating to the Federal old-age,
2.750 survivors, disability, supplemental
Jkt 247001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Nancy Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling
Social Security Ruling 19–1p; Titles II
and XVI: Effect of the Decision in Lucia
v. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) On Cases Pending
at the Appeals Council
ACTION:
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social
Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004—
Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006
Supplemental Security Income.)
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 19–1p
Titles II and XVI: Effect of the Decision
in Lucia V. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on Cases Pending at
the Appeals Council
Purpose: This ruling explains how we
will adjudicate cases pending at the
Appeals Council in which the claimant
has raised a timely challenge to the
appointment of an administrative law
judge (ALJ) under the Appointments
Clause of the United States Constitution
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018).
Citations: 20 CFR 404.970, 404.976(b),
416.1470, and 416.1476(b).
Background: In Lucia, the Supreme
Court considered a challenge to the
manner in which the SEC appointed its
ALJs. The Supreme Court held that the
SEC’s ALJs are ‘‘Officers of the United
States’’ within the meaning of the
Appointments Clause of the United
States Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.1 As
a result, the SEC’s ALJs should have
been (but were not) appointed to their
positions by either the President, a court
of law, or the Department head. The
Supreme Court reversed the lower
court’s decision finding that the SEC’s
ALJs were not inferior officers. Having
determined that Lucia had raised a
timely challenge to the ALJ’s
1 The Supreme Court explained in Lucia that
‘‘[t]he Appointments Clause prescribes the
exclusive means of appointing ‘Officers.’ Only the
President, a court of law, or a head of department
can do so. See Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.’’ Lucia v. SEC, 138
S. Ct. 2044, 2051 (2018).
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2019 / Notices
appointment, the Supreme Court
remanded the case for a new hearing
before a properly appointed ALJ who
had not previously heard the case, or
before the SEC itself.2 The Supreme
Court’s decision in Lucia did not
specifically address the constitutional
status of ALJs who work in other
Federal agencies, including the Social
Security Administration (SSA). To
address any Appointments Clause
questions involving Social Security
claims, and consistent with guidance
from the Department of Justice, on July
16, 2018 the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security ratified the
appointments of our ALJs and approved
those appointments as her own.3 On the
same day, the Acting Commissioner
took the same actions with respect to
the administrative appeals judges (AAJs)
who work at the Appeals Council.4 We
are issuing this SSR to explain how the
Appeals Council will adjudicate appeals
in which the claimant timely raises an
Appointments Clause challenge to the
authority of the ALJ who decided or
dismissed a claim.
Policy Interpretation: We receive
millions of applications for benefits
each year.5 The essential requirement
for any system of administrative review
in a program as large and complex as
ours is that it ‘‘must be fair—and it must
work.’’ 6 In adjudicating the millions of
claims we receive each year, we strive
to balance the two overriding concerns
of fairness and efficiency, consistent
with the law. The Social Security
system must be fair and accurate and
provide each claimant with appropriate
due process protections. At the same
time, the Supreme Court has recognized
that we must make decisions efficiently
in order to ensure that the system
continues to work and serve the
American people.7 Because we employ
more ALJs than all other Federal
agencies combined, and our ALJs issue
hundreds of thousands of decisions
2 Lucia
v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. at 2055.
Social Security Emergency Message (EM)
18003 REV 2, § B (available at: https://secure.
ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/0806201802102
5PM).
4 Id.
5 In fiscal year 2017, we completed 5.62 million
retirement and survivors insurance claims and
2.485 million initial disability claims. We also
received 620,000 hearing requests, and completed
686,000 hearings. FY 2019 Congressional
Justification, at 6 (available at: https://www.ssa.gov/
budget/FY19Files/2019CJ.pdf).
6 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399 (1971).
7 For example, in Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S.
20, 28–29 (2003), the Supreme Court stated that,
‘‘As we have observed, ‘[t]he Social Security
hearing system is probably the largest adjudicative
system in the western world.’ . . . The need for
efficiency is self-evident.’ ’’ (quoting Heckler v.
Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461 n.2 (1983)).
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES
3 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Mar 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
each year, Lucia has the potential to
significantly affect our hearings and
appeals process. To properly address
the issues Lucia raises in the context of
our hearings and appeals system, we
have determined that some claimants
are entitled to additional administrative
review of their claims.
A claimant who is dissatisfied with an
ALJ’s decision, or the dismissal of a
request for a hearing, may request that
the Appeals Council review the decision
or dismissal. Under our regulations, the
Appeals Council will review a case if:
(1) There appears to be an abuse of
discretion by the ALJ;
(2) there is an error of law;
(3) the ALJ’s action, findings or
conclusions are not supported by
substantial evidence;
(4) there is a broad policy or
procedural issue that may affect the
general public interest; or
(5) the Appeals Council receives
additional evidence that the claimant
shows is new, material, and relates to
the period on or before the date of the
ALJ hearing decision, and there is a
reasonable probability that the evidence
would change the outcome of the
decision.8
We interpret some challenges to the
ALJ’s authority to hear and decide a
claim, based on the Supreme Court’s
decision in Lucia, as raising ‘‘a broad
policy or procedural issue that may
affect the general public interest’’ within
the meaning of our regulations.
Challenges to an ALJ’s authority to
decide a claim may raise a broadly
applicable procedural issue
independent of the merits of the
individual claim for benefits—that is,
whether the ALJ who presided over the
claimant’s hearing was properly
appointed under the Appointments
Clause of the Constitution. We will
process requests for review that include
a timely administrative challenge to the
ALJ’s authority based on the
Appointments Clause in the manner
described below.
The Appeals Council will grant the
claimant’s request for review in cases
where the claimant: (1) Timely requests
Appeals Council review of an ALJ’s
decision or dismissal issued before July
16, 2018; and (2) raises before us (either
at the Appeals Council level, or
previously had raised at the ALJ level)
a challenge under the Appointments
Clause to the authority of the ALJ who
issued the decision or dismissal in the
case.
When the Appeals Council grants
review based on a timely-raised
Appointments Clause challenge, AAJs
8 20
PO 00000
CFR 404.970(a) and (b), 416.1470(a) and (b).
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9583
who have been appointed by the Acting
Commissioner (or whose appointments
the Acting Commissioner has ratified)
will vacate the hearing decision or
dismissal.9 In cases in which the ALJ
made a decision, the Appeals Council
will conduct a new and independent
review of the claims file and either
remand the case to an ALJ other than
the ALJ who issued the decision under
review, or issue its own new decision
about the claim covering the period
before the date of the ALJ’s decision. In
its review, the Appeals Council will not
presume that the prior hearing decision
was correct.10
In cases in which the ALJ dismissed
a request for a hearing, the Appeals
Council will vacate the ALJ’s dismissal
order.11 It will then either: (1) Decide
whether the request for a hearing should
be dismissed, or (2) remand the case to
another ALJ to determine that issue.
When the Appeals Council grants a
claimant’s request for review in cases
that raise a timely Appointments Clause
challenge, the claimant may request a
reasonable opportunity to file briefs or
other written statements about the facts
and law relevant to the case.12 Our
regulations also allow a claimant to
request to appear before the Appeals
Council to present oral argument.13 If
the Appeals Council decides that the
case raises an important question of law
or policy, or that oral argument would
help to reach the proper result, the
Appeals Council will grant the request
to appear. If the Appeals Council grants
a request to appear and holds oral
argument, it will notify the claimant and
his or her representative about the time
and place at least 10 days before the
9 Under our regulations, whenever the Appeals
Council reviews a hearing decision under 20 CFR
404.967, 404.969, 416.1467, or 416.1469, and the
claimant does not appear personally or through
representation before the Appeals Council to
present oral argument, the Appeals Council’s
review will be conducted by a panel of not less than
two members of the Appeals Council designated in
the manner prescribed by the Chairman or Deputy
Chairman of the Council. In the event of
disagreement between a panel composed of only
two members, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman,
or his or her delegate, who must be a member of
the Council, shall participate as a third member of
the panel. When the claimant appears in person or
through representation before the Appeals Council,
the review will be conducted by a panel of not less
than three members of the Council designated in
the manner prescribed by the Chairman or Deputy
Chairman. Concurrence of a majority of a panel
shall constitute the decision of the Appeals Council
unless the case is considered by the Appeals
Council en banc or as a representative body, as
provided in 20 CFR 422.205. See 20 CFR
422.205(b).
10 20 CFR 404.979, 416.1479.
11 20 CFR 404.960(a), 416.1460(a).
12 20 CFR 404.975, 416.1475.
13 20 CFR 404.976(b), 416.1476(b).
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
9584
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2019 / Notices
date scheduled for the appearance.14
The Appeals Council will determine
whether the appearance, or the
appearance of any other person relevant
to the proceeding, will be in person, by
video teleconferencing, or by
telephone.15
When the Appeals Council grants a
request for review, it will mail a notice
to all parties at their last known address
stating the reasons for the review and
the issues to be considered.16 Consistent
with our regulations, the Appeals
Council will consider all the evidence
in the ALJ hearing record, as well as
additional evidence subject to the
limitations on Appeals Council
consideration of additional evidence in
20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470. The
Appeals Council will also consider any
arguments the claimant or
representative made in writing or at the
hearing and will also consider any
additional arguments submitted to it.
The Appeals Council will either
remand the case to a different ALJ; issue
a new, independent decision; or, as
appropriate, issue an order dismissing
the request for a hearing. When the
Appeals Council issues a decision, its
decision may result in different findings
from the ALJ hearing decision that the
Appeals Council vacated.17 When the
Appeals Council grants review and
issues its own decision, its decision will
be based on the preponderance of the
evidence.18
[FR Doc. 2019–04817 Filed 3–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice: 10684]
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Application Under the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction
Notice of request for public
comment and submission to OMB of
proposed collection of information.
ACTION:
The Department of State has
submitted the information collection
described below to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we
are requesting comments on this
collection from all interested
individuals and organizations. The
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 20
CFR 404.973, 416.1473
17 20
CFR 404.979, 416.1479.
18 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Mar 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
purpose of this Notice is to allow 30
days for public comment.
DATES: Submit comments directly to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) up to April 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Direct comments to the
Department of State Desk Officer in the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs at the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). You may submit
comments by the following methods:
• Email: oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov. You must include the DS
form number, information collection
title, and the OMB control number in
the subject line of your message.
• Fax: 202–395–5806. Attention: Desk
Officer for Department of State.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct requests for additional
information regarding the collection
listed in this notice, including requests
for copies of the proposed collection
instrument and supporting documents,
to Derek A. Rivers, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/
OCS/PMO), U.S. Department of State,
2201 C. St. NW, Washington, DC 20522,
who may be reached at RiversDA@
state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
• Title of Information Collection:
Application Under the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.
• OMB Control Number: 1405–0076.
• Type of Request: Revision of a
Currently Approved Collection.
• Originating Office: Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens
Services (CA/OCS).
• Form Number: DS–3013, 3013s.
• Respondents: Person seeking return
of or access to child.
• Estimated Number of Respondents:
565.
• Estimated Number of Responses:
565.
• Average Time per Response: 60
minutes.
• Total Estimated Burden Time: 565
hours
• Frequency: On occasion.
• Obligation to Respond: Voluntary.
We are soliciting public comments to
permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
information collection is necessary for
the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the time and cost burden for
this proposed collection, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on
those who are to respond, including the
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Please note that comments submitted in
response to this Notice are public
record. Before including any detailed
personal information, you should be
aware that your comments as submitted,
including your personal information,
will be available for public review.
Abstract of Proposed Collection
The Application Under the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (DS–3013
and DS 3013–s) is used by parents or
legal guardians who are requesting the
State Department’s assistance in seeking
the return of, or access to, a child or
children alleged to have been
wrongfully removed from or retained
outside of the child’s habitual residence
and currently located in another country
that is also party to the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (the
Convention). The application requests
information regarding the identities of
the applicant, the child or children, and
the person alleged to have wrongfully
removed or retained the child or
children. In addition, the application
requires that the applicant provide the
circumstances of the alleged wrongful
removal or retention and the legal
justification for the request for return or
access. The State Department, as the
U.S. Central Authority for the
Convention, uses this information to
establish, if possible, the applicants’
claims under the Convention; to inform
applicants about available remedies
under the Convention; and to provide
the information necessary to the foreign
Central Authority in its efforts to locate
the child or children, and to facilitate
return of or access to the child or
children pursuant to the Convention. 22
U.S.C. 9008 is the legal authority that
permits the Department to gather this
information.
Methodology
The completed form DS–3013 and DS
3013–s may be submitted to the Office
of Children’s Issues by mail, by fax, or
electronically accessed through
www.travel.state.gov.
Michelle Bernier-Toth,
Managing Director, Bureau of Consular
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2019–04812 Filed 3–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–06–P
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9582-9584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04817]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No. SSA-2019-0001]
Social Security Ruling 19-1p; Titles II and XVI: Effect of the
Decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) On Cases
Pending at the Appeals Council
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are giving notice of SSR 19-1p. This ruling explains how we
will adjudicate cases pending at the Appeals Council in which the
claimant has raised a timely challenge to the appointment of an
administrative law judge (ALJ) under the Appointments Clause of the
United States Constitution in light of the Supreme Court's recent 2018
decision in Lucia v. SEC.
DATES: We will apply this notice on March 15, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Chung, Office of Appellate
Operations, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, (703) 605-7100.
For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our
national toll-free number 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or
visit our internet site, Social Security online, at https://www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do
not require us to publish this SSR, we are doing so under 20 CFR
402.35(b)(1).
Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability,
supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs.
We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of
administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's
decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other
interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or
regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security
Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
This SSR will remain in effect until we publish a notice in the
Federal Register that rescinds it, or we publish a new SSR that
replaces or modifies it.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program Nos. 96.001, Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004--Social Security--Survivors Insurance; 96.006
Supplemental Security Income.)
Nancy Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 19-1p
Titles II and XVI: Effect of the Decision in Lucia V. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on Cases Pending at the Appeals Council
Purpose: This ruling explains how we will adjudicate cases pending
at the Appeals Council in which the claimant has raised a timely
challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge (ALJ) under
the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution in light of
the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018).
Citations: 20 CFR 404.970, 404.976(b), 416.1470, and 416.1476(b).
Background: In Lucia, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to
the manner in which the SEC appointed its ALJs. The Supreme Court held
that the SEC's ALJs are ``Officers of the United States'' within the
meaning of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,
Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2.\1\ As a result, the SEC's ALJs should have
been (but were not) appointed to their positions by either the
President, a court of law, or the Department head. The Supreme Court
reversed the lower court's decision finding that the SEC's ALJs were
not inferior officers. Having determined that Lucia had raised a timely
challenge to the ALJ's
[[Page 9583]]
appointment, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a new hearing
before a properly appointed ALJ who had not previously heard the case,
or before the SEC itself.\2\ The Supreme Court's decision in Lucia did
not specifically address the constitutional status of ALJs who work in
other Federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration
(SSA). To address any Appointments Clause questions involving Social
Security claims, and consistent with guidance from the Department of
Justice, on July 16, 2018 the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
ratified the appointments of our ALJs and approved those appointments
as her own.\3\ On the same day, the Acting Commissioner took the same
actions with respect to the administrative appeals judges (AAJs) who
work at the Appeals Council.\4\ We are issuing this SSR to explain how
the Appeals Council will adjudicate appeals in which the claimant
timely raises an Appointments Clause challenge to the authority of the
ALJ who decided or dismissed a claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Supreme Court explained in Lucia that ``[t]he
Appointments Clause prescribes the exclusive means of appointing
`Officers.' Only the President, a court of law, or a head of
department can do so. See Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2.'' Lucia v. SEC,
138 S. Ct. 2044, 2051 (2018).
\2\ Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. at 2055.
\3\ See Social Security Emergency Message (EM) 18003 REV 2,
Sec. B (available at: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/08062018021025PM).
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Interpretation: We receive millions of applications for
benefits each year.\5\ The essential requirement for any system of
administrative review in a program as large and complex as ours is that
it ``must be fair--and it must work.'' \6\ In adjudicating the millions
of claims we receive each year, we strive to balance the two overriding
concerns of fairness and efficiency, consistent with the law. The
Social Security system must be fair and accurate and provide each
claimant with appropriate due process protections. At the same time,
the Supreme Court has recognized that we must make decisions
efficiently in order to ensure that the system continues to work and
serve the American people.\7\ Because we employ more ALJs than all
other Federal agencies combined, and our ALJs issue hundreds of
thousands of decisions each year, Lucia has the potential to
significantly affect our hearings and appeals process. To properly
address the issues Lucia raises in the context of our hearings and
appeals system, we have determined that some claimants are entitled to
additional administrative review of their claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In fiscal year 2017, we completed 5.62 million retirement
and survivors insurance claims and 2.485 million initial disability
claims. We also received 620,000 hearing requests, and completed
686,000 hearings. FY 2019 Congressional Justification, at 6
(available at: https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY19Files/2019CJ.pdf).
\6\ Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399 (1971).
\7\ For example, in Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 28-29
(2003), the Supreme Court stated that, ``As we have observed, `[t]he
Social Security hearing system is probably the largest adjudicative
system in the western world.' . . . The need for efficiency is self-
evident.' '' (quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461 n.2
(1983)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A claimant who is dissatisfied with an ALJ's decision, or the
dismissal of a request for a hearing, may request that the Appeals
Council review the decision or dismissal. Under our regulations, the
Appeals Council will review a case if:
(1) There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the ALJ;
(2) there is an error of law;
(3) the ALJ's action, findings or conclusions are not supported by
substantial evidence;
(4) there is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the
general public interest; or
(5) the Appeals Council receives additional evidence that the
claimant shows is new, material, and relates to the period on or before
the date of the ALJ hearing decision, and there is a reasonable
probability that the evidence would change the outcome of the
decision.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 20 CFR 404.970(a) and (b), 416.1470(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We interpret some challenges to the ALJ's authority to hear and
decide a claim, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Lucia, as
raising ``a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the
general public interest'' within the meaning of our regulations.
Challenges to an ALJ's authority to decide a claim may raise a broadly
applicable procedural issue independent of the merits of the individual
claim for benefits--that is, whether the ALJ who presided over the
claimant's hearing was properly appointed under the Appointments Clause
of the Constitution. We will process requests for review that include a
timely administrative challenge to the ALJ's authority based on the
Appointments Clause in the manner described below.
The Appeals Council will grant the claimant's request for review in
cases where the claimant: (1) Timely requests Appeals Council review of
an ALJ's decision or dismissal issued before July 16, 2018; and (2)
raises before us (either at the Appeals Council level, or previously
had raised at the ALJ level) a challenge under the Appointments Clause
to the authority of the ALJ who issued the decision or dismissal in the
case.
When the Appeals Council grants review based on a timely-raised
Appointments Clause challenge, AAJs who have been appointed by the
Acting Commissioner (or whose appointments the Acting Commissioner has
ratified) will vacate the hearing decision or dismissal.\9\ In cases in
which the ALJ made a decision, the Appeals Council will conduct a new
and independent review of the claims file and either remand the case to
an ALJ other than the ALJ who issued the decision under review, or
issue its own new decision about the claim covering the period before
the date of the ALJ's decision. In its review, the Appeals Council will
not presume that the prior hearing decision was correct.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under our regulations, whenever the Appeals Council reviews
a hearing decision under 20 CFR 404.967, 404.969, 416.1467, or
416.1469, and the claimant does not appear personally or through
representation before the Appeals Council to present oral argument,
the Appeals Council's review will be conducted by a panel of not
less than two members of the Appeals Council designated in the
manner prescribed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Council.
In the event of disagreement between a panel composed of only two
members, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, or his or her delegate,
who must be a member of the Council, shall participate as a third
member of the panel. When the claimant appears in person or through
representation before the Appeals Council, the review will be
conducted by a panel of not less than three members of the Council
designated in the manner prescribed by the Chairman or Deputy
Chairman. Concurrence of a majority of a panel shall constitute the
decision of the Appeals Council unless the case is considered by the
Appeals Council en banc or as a representative body, as provided in
20 CFR 422.205. See 20 CFR 422.205(b).
\10\ 20 CFR 404.979, 416.1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases in which the ALJ dismissed a request for a hearing, the
Appeals Council will vacate the ALJ's dismissal order.\11\ It will then
either: (1) Decide whether the request for a hearing should be
dismissed, or (2) remand the case to another ALJ to determine that
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 20 CFR 404.960(a), 416.1460(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Appeals Council grants a claimant's request for review in
cases that raise a timely Appointments Clause challenge, the claimant
may request a reasonable opportunity to file briefs or other written
statements about the facts and law relevant to the case.\12\ Our
regulations also allow a claimant to request to appear before the
Appeals Council to present oral argument.\13\ If the Appeals Council
decides that the case raises an important question of law or policy, or
that oral argument would help to reach the proper result, the Appeals
Council will grant the request to appear. If the Appeals Council grants
a request to appear and holds oral argument, it will notify the
claimant and his or her representative about the time and place at
least 10 days before the
[[Page 9584]]
date scheduled for the appearance.\14\ The Appeals Council will
determine whether the appearance, or the appearance of any other person
relevant to the proceeding, will be in person, by video
teleconferencing, or by telephone.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 20 CFR 404.975, 416.1475.
\13\ 20 CFR 404.976(b), 416.1476(b).
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Appeals Council grants a request for review, it will mail
a notice to all parties at their last known address stating the reasons
for the review and the issues to be considered.\16\ Consistent with our
regulations, the Appeals Council will consider all the evidence in the
ALJ hearing record, as well as additional evidence subject to the
limitations on Appeals Council consideration of additional evidence in
20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470. The Appeals Council will also consider any
arguments the claimant or representative made in writing or at the
hearing and will also consider any additional arguments submitted to
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 20 CFR 404.973, 416.1473
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Council will either remand the case to a different ALJ;
issue a new, independent decision; or, as appropriate, issue an order
dismissing the request for a hearing. When the Appeals Council issues a
decision, its decision may result in different findings from the ALJ
hearing decision that the Appeals Council vacated.\17\ When the Appeals
Council grants review and issues its own decision, its decision will be
based on the preponderance of the evidence.\18\
\17\ 20 CFR 404.979, 416.1479.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-04817 Filed 3-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
