Walbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Walbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 25, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-06179

StatusUnknown

This text of Walbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security (Walbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

05 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 06 AT SEATTLE

07 BONNIE W., ) ) CASE NO. C19-6179-MAT 08 Plaintiff, ) ) 09 v. ) ) ORDER RE: SOCIAL SECURITY 10 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) DISABILITY APPEAL SECURITY, ) 11 ) Defendant. ) 12 ____________________________________ )

13 In this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision 14 denying her applications for disability benefits. Dkt. 4. One of Plaintiff’s assignments of 15 error relates to the application of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. 16 Dkt. 27-at 18-19. 17 On November 9, 2020, after Plaintiff’s opening brief had been filed, the United States 18 Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether a claimant seeking disability 19 benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits a challenge to the appointment of an 20 administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution by 21 failing to raise that issue during the administrative proceedings. See Carr v. Saul, 961 F.3d 22 1267 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 6551771 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 19-1442); 01 Davis v. Saul, 963 F.3d 790, 791 (8th Cir. June 26, 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 655177 2 02 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 20-105). 03 The Court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefing indicating whether 04 they would prefer to proceed with this action or stay the matter until the Supreme Court has 05 resolved the current circuit split by answering the question presented. Dkt. 30. The 06 Commissioner indicated that he preferred a stay, and Plaintiff did not file any response. Dkt. 07 31. 08 Seeing no opposition to the Commissioner’s request for a stay, the Court STAYS this 09 matter until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the consolidated cases of Carr and Davis, or 10 until this Court orders otherwise. Within 14 days of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Plaintiff 11 shall file a supplemental brief addressing her position on the Appointments Clause issue.

12 Within 14 days after the filing of Plaintiff’s supplemental brief, the Commissioner shall file a 13 supplemental brief responding to Plaintiff’s brief and setting forth his position on the 14 Appointments Clause issue. 15 DATED this 25th day of January, 2021.

16 A 17 Mary Alice Theiler 18 United States Magistrate Judge

19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

05 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 06 AT SEATTLE

07 BONNIE W., ) ) CASE NO. C19-6179-MAT 08 Plaintiff, ) ) 09 v. ) ) ORDER RE: SOCIAL SECURITY 10 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) DISABILITY APPEAL SECURITY, ) 11 ) Defendant. ) 12 ____________________________________ )

13 In this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision 14 denying her applications for disability benefits. Dkt. 4. One of Plaintiff’s assignments of 15 error relates to the application of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. 16 Dkt. 27-at 18-19. 17 On November 9, 2020, after Plaintiff’s opening brief had been filed, the United States 18 Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether a claimant seeking disability 19 benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits a challenge to the appointment of an 20 administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution by 21 failing to raise that issue during the administrative proceedings. See Carr v. Saul, 961 F.3d 22 1267 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 6551771 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 19-1442); 01 Davis v. Saul, 963 F.3d 790, 791 (8th Cir. June 26, 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 655177 2 02 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 20-105). 03 The Court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefing indicating whether 04 they would prefer to proceed with this action or stay the matter until the Supreme Court has 05 resolved the current circuit split by answering the question presented. Dkt. 30. The 06 Commissioner indicated that he preferred a stay, and Plaintiff did not file any response. Dkt. 07 31. 08 Seeing no opposition to the Commissioner’s request for a stay, the Court STAYS this 09 matter until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the consolidated cases of Carr and Davis, or 10 until this Court orders otherwise. Within 14 days of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Plaintiff 11 shall file a supplemental brief addressing her position on the Appointments Clause issue.

12 Within 14 days after the filing of Plaintiff’s supplemental brief, the Commissioner shall file a 13 supplemental brief responding to Plaintiff’s brief and setting forth his position on the 14 Appointments Clause issue. 15 DATED this 25th day of January, 2021.

16 A 17 Mary Alice Theiler 18 United States Magistrate Judge

19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walbaum-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack