Taylor v. Saul

1 Citing case

  1. Unbehagen v. Saul

    1:18CV704 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 16, 2019)   Cited 2 times
    Finding claimant's argument did not present a "rare case" for discretionary review, and concluding that "[g]iven the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of an exhaustion requirement for Appointments Clause challenges in its post- Freytag decisions in Ryder and Lucia , the Court should not read Freytag as adopting a rule that all Appointments Clause challenges qualify as ‘rare cases’ that justify the excusal of forfeiture"

    Lastly, since Lucia (and notwithstanding Bradshaw and Probst), 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 See, e.g., Joines v. Berryhill, No. 5:18CV65, 2019 WL 4197190, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2019) (unpublished); Lamb v. Berryhill, No. 1:18CV202, 2019 WL 4197182, at *2-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2019) (unpublished); Taylor v. Saul, No. 1:16CV44, 2019 WL 3837975, at *4-6 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019) (unpublished); Harris v. Saul, No. 4:18CV135, 2019 WL 2865840, at *5 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2019) (unpublished); Lewark v. Saul, No. 2:18CV45, 2019 WL 2619370, at *2 (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2019) (unpublished); Morrison v. Berryhill, No. 5:18CV156, 2019 WL 2607026, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 25, 2019) (unpublished); Edwards v.Berryhill, No. 3:18CV615, 2019 WL 2619542, at *4-5 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2019) (unpublished), recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2620005 (E.D. Va. June 26, 2019) (unpublished); Edwards v. Berryhill, No. 2:18CV121, 2019 WL 1919167, at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2019) (unpublished); Shelton v. Berryhill, No. 2:17CV609, 2019 WL 1330897, at *11-12 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2019) (unpublished), appeal filed, No. 19-1715 (4th Cir. July 8, 2019); Shipman v. Berryhill, No. 1:17CV309, 2019 WL 281313, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2019) (unpublished).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 fo