Taylor v. Saul

9 Citing cases

  1. Klugh v. Kijakazi

    5:22-cv-00053-FDW (W.D.N.C. May. 5, 2023)

    See, e.g., Williams v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-141, 2022 WL 2163008, at *2-4 (W.D. N.C. June 15, 2022); Taylor v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-648, 2022 WL 4668273, at *9, (M.D. N.C. Aug. 2, 2022); Black v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-322, 2022 WL 2977340, at *3 (W.D. N.C. July 27, 2022); Edwards v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00134, 2022 WL 3352298, at *4 (W.D.N.C); Call v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 5:21-CV-00145, 2023 WL 1093670, at *5 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2023); Stanley v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-CV-43, 2023 WL 318581, at *12 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 29, 2023); Allison v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-890, 2023 WL 143201, at *12 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2023); Huntsinger v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00267, 2023 WL 1456187, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 4, 2023); Brooks v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-609, 2022 WL 2834345, at *16 (M.D. N.C. July 20, 2022); Donta J. v. Saul, No. 2:20-CV-131, 2021 WL 3705145, at *7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted by 2021 WL 2711467 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2021); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-CV-00044, 2019 WL 1055098, at *4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019).

  2. Curtain v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    3:22-cv-00063-FDW (W.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2023)

    See, e.g., Williams v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-141, 2022 WL 2163008, at *2-4 (W.D. N.C. June 15, 2022); Taylor v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-648, 2022 WL 4668273, at *9, (M.D. N.C. Aug. 2, 2022); Black v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-322, 2022 WL 2977340, at *3 (W.D. N.C. July 27, 2022); Edwards v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00134, 2022 WL 3352298, at *4 (W.D.N.C); Call v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 5:21-CV-00145, 2023 WL 1093670, at *5 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2023); Stanley v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-CV-43, 2023 WL 318581, at *12 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 29, 2023); Allison v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-890, 2023 WL 143201, at *12 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2023); Huntsinger v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00267, 2023 WL 1456187, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 4, 2023); Brooks v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-609, 2022 WL 2834345, at *16 (M.D. N.C. July 20, 2022); Donta J. v. Saul, No. 2:20-CV-131, 2021 WL 3705145, at *7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted by 2021 WL 2711467 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2021); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-CV-00044, 2019 WL 1055098, at *4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019).

  3. Cote v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    1:21-cv-00303-FDW (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2023)

    See, e.g., Williams v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-141, 2022 WL 2163008, at *2-4 (W.D. N.C. June 15, 2022); Taylor v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-648, 2022 WL 4668273, at *9, (M.D. N.C. Aug. 2, 2022); Black v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-322, 2022 WL 2977340, at *3 (W.D. N.C. July 27, 2022); Edwards v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00134, 2022 WL 3352298, at *4 (W.D.N.C); Call v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 5:21-CV-00145, 2023 WL 1093670, at *5 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2023); Stanley v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-CV-43, 2023 WL 318581, at *12 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 29, 2023); Allison v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-890, 2023 WL 143201, at *12 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 10, 2023); Huntsinger v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 1:21-CV-00267, 2023 WL 1456187, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 4, 2023); Brooks v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-609, 2022 WL 2834345, at *16 (M.D. N.C. July 20, 2022); Donta J. v. Saul, No. 2:20-CV-131, 2021 WL 3705145, at *7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted by 2021 WL 2711467 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2021); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-CV-00044, 2019 WL 1055098, at *4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019).

  4. Spain v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

    Civil Action 21-2367 (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2023)   Cited 5 times

    (although “far more than 210 days passed” after resignation of permanent official before submission of nomination, a “separate provision of the FVRA permits an acting official to serve ‘from the date of' a first nomination for the vacant office and ‘for the period that the nomination is pending in the Senate,'” such that acting official could “lawfully serv[e] as Acting Secretary” upon submission of the nomination).Accord Donta J. v. Saul, No. 2:20-cv-131-RGD-DEM, 2021 WL 3705145, at *7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted by 2021 WL 2711467 (E.D. Va. Jul. 1, 2021); Austin v. Saul, No. 19-CV-3017-CJW, 2020 WL 5229540, at *16 n. 7 (N.D. Iowa May 12, 2020), adopted by 2020 WL 3100838 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2020); Heins v. Saul, No. 19-CV-2043-LTS, 2020 WL 6052583, at *21 n. 18 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2020), adopted by 2020 WL 4369450 (N.D. Iowa July 30, 2020); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-cv-00044, 2019 WL 3837975, at *4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019); Mark F. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-02031-MJD-TWP, 2019 WL 1055098, at n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2019); Vickie H. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-00351-SEB-DLP, 2019 WL 1370700, at n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2019), adopted by 2019 WL 1367537 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2019); Charles K. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-02013-JPH-DML, 2019 WL 667760, at n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2019); Lopez Davila v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-12212-ADB, 2018 WL 6704722, at *1 n. 1 (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2018); Patterson v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-00193, 2018 WL 8367459, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2018). Moreover, the legislative history and the views of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch confirm that Section 3346(a)(2) serves as a spring-back provision.

  5. Watts v. Kijakazi

    Civil Action 21-2044 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2022)   Cited 11 times

    Heins v. Saul, No. 19-cv-2043-LTS, 2020 WL 6052583, at *21 n. 18 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2020), report and recommendation adopted by 2020 WL 4369450 (N.D. Iowa July 30, 2020); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-cv-00044, 2019 WL 3837975, at *4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019); Mark F. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-02031-MJD-TWP, 2019 WL 1055098, at *n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2019); Vickie H. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-00351-SEB-DLP, 2019 WL 1370700, at *n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2019), report and recommendation adopted by 2019 WL 1367537 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2019); Charles K. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-02013-JPH-DML, 2019 WL 667760, at *n. 2 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2019); Lopez Davila v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-12212-ADB, 2018 WL 6704722, at *1 n. 1 (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2018); Patterson v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-00193, 2018 WL 8367459, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2018). Plaintiff's final issue on review argues that the ALJ's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

  6. Williams v. Kijakazi

    CIVIL 1:21-CV-141-GCM (W.D.N.C. Jun. 15, 2022)   Cited 53 times

    (although “far more than 210 days passed” after resignation of permanent official before submission of nomination, a “separate provision of the FVRA permits an acting official to serve ‘from the date of' a first nomination for the vacant office and ‘for the period that the nomination is pending in the Senate, '” such that acting official could “lawfully serv[e] as Acting Secretary” upon submission of nomination).Accord Donta J. v. Saul, No. 2:20-cv-131-RGD-DEM, 2021 WL 3705145, at *7 (E.D. Va. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted by 2021 WL 2711467 (E.D. Va. Jul. 1, 2021); Austin v. Saul, No. 19-CV-3017-CJW, 2020 WL 5229540, at *16 n.7 (N.D. Iowa May 12, 2020), adopted by 2020 WL 3100838 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2020); Heins v. Saul, No. 19-CV-2043-LTS, 2020 WL 6052583, at *21 n.18 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2020), adopted by 2020 WL 4369450 (N.D. Iowa July 30, 2020); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16-cv-00044, 2019 WL 3837975, at *4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019); Mark F. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-02031-MJD-TWP, 2019 WL 1055098, at n.2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2019); Vickie H. v. Berryhill, 6 No. 1:18-cv-00351-SEB-DLP, 2019 WL 1370700, at n.2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2019), adopted by 2019 WL 1367537 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2019); Charles K. v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-02013-JPH-DML, 2019 WL 667760, at n.2 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2019); Lopez Davila v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-12212-ADB, 2018 WL 6704722, at *1 n.1 (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2018); Patterson v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-00193, 2018 WL 8367459, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2018); but see Richard J.M. v. Kijakazi, No. 19-cv-827, 2022 WL 959914 (D. Minn. Mar. 30, 2022) (following Brian T.D.). Magistrate Judge Schultz has also ordered remands in two additional cases, incorporating by reference his ruling in Brian T.D.

  7. Widener v. Saul

    Civil Action No. 1:18cv00038 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2020)

    nsf/links08062018021025PM (last visited Mar. 23, 2020). As this court previously stated in Taylor v. Saul, 2019 WL 3837975, at *5 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019), numerous district courts have considered Appointments Clause challenges to the validity of SSA decisions denying claims for benefits in the wake of the Lucia ruling. Most of the decisions reviewed by the undersigned have found that an Appointments Clause challenge to the validity of an SSA decision is forfeited or waived by the claimant if not raised before the ALJ who heard the case. See, e.g., Muhammad v. Berryhill, 381 F. Supp. 3d 462 (E.D. Pa. 2019); Fortin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 372 F. Supp. 3d 558, 562-68 (E.D. Mich. 2019); Bonilla-Bukhari v. Berryhill, 357 F. Supp. 3d 341 (S.D. N.Y. 2019); Sprouse v. Berryhill, 363 F. Supp. 3d 543 (D. N.J. 2019); Delores A. v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1330314 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019); Diane S. P. v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1879256 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2019); Shipman v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 281313 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 22, 2019); Iwan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2018 WL 4295202 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 10, 2018); Abbington v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 6571208 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 13, 20

  8. 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.

  9. 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