Taylor v. Saul

2 Citing cases

  1. David S. v. Saul

    No. 1:19-CV-03009-JTR (E.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    The majority of courts have held that failure to raise the claim during the administrative proceedings results in forfeiture. See, e.g. Rebecca Lou Younger v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin, No. CV-18-2975, 2020 WL 57814, at *5 (D. Ariz., Jan. 6, 2020) (referencing string cite of district court decisions finding forfeiture); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-cv-44, 2019 WL 3837975, at *5-6 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019); Hodge v. Saul, No. 1:18-cv-206, 2019 WL 3767130 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 2019). However, a growing body of courts have held the opposite.

  2. Love v. Saul

    1:18CV448 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Finding forfeiture

    Lastly, since Lucia (and notwithstanding contrary rulings in Probst v. Berryhill, 377 F. Supp. 3d 578 (E.D.N.C. 2019), appeal filed, No. 19-1529 (4th Cir. May 17, 2019), and Bradshaw v. Berryhill, 372 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D.N.C. 2019), appeal filed, No. 19-1531 (4th Cir. May 17, 2019)), other district courts in the Fourth Circuit overwhelmingly have rejected as forfeited challenges to the SSA's ALJs under the Appointments Clause when the plaintiff did not raise the issue while his or her claim remained pending before the SSA. See, e.g., Joines v. Berryhill, No. 5:18CV65, 2019 WL 4197190, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2019) (unpublished); Lamb v. Berryhill, No. 1:18CV202, 2019 WL 4197182, at *2-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2019) (unpublished); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16CV44, 2019 WL 3837975, at *4-6 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019) (unpublished); Harris v. Saul, No. 4:18CV135, 2019 WL 2865840, at *5 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2019) (unpublished); Lewark v. Saul, No. 2:18CV45, 2019 WL 2619370, at *2 (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2019) (unpublished); Morrison v. Berryhill, No. 5:18CV156, 2019 WL 2607026, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 25, 2019) (unpublished); Edwards v. Berryhill, No. 3:18CV615, 2019 WL 2619542, at *4-5 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2019) (unpublished), recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2620005 (E.D. Va. June 26, 2019) (unpublished); Edwards v. Berryhill, No. 2:18CV121, 2019 WL 1919167, at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2019) (unpublished); Shelton v. Berryhill, No. 2:17CV609, 2019 WL 1330897, at *11-12 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2019) (unpublished), appeal filed, No. 19-1715 (4th Cir. July 8, 2019); Shipman v. Berryhill, No. 1:17CV309, 2019 WL 281313, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2019) (unpublished). In sum, the Court should conclude that Plaintiff's failure to raise her challenge under the Appointments Clause while her claim remained pending before the SSA f