Mohr v. Berryhill

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDER REMANDING CASE; adopting 24 Report and Recommendations.Mohrs appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED, and the Commissioners decision is VACATED;(3) This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for a new hearing. (See order for details).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 6/9/20. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KIMBERLY MOHR,

:

Plaintiff

:
:

v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,1

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-1057
(MANNION, D.J.)

:

(SAPORITO, M.J.)

:
Defendant
ORDER
Before the court is the report and recommendation (“Report”) of
Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., wherein he recommends that the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be vacated and that this case be
remanded for a rehearing before a different Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (Doc. 24). No objections have been filed to the Report.
When no objections are made to the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note; see also
Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.

1

On June 17, 2019, Andrew Saul was sworn in as the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d), he has
been substituted as the defendant in this case.

2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)
(explaining judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. L.R. 72.31.
The plaintiff Kimberly Mohr’s (“Mohr”) administrative hearing was
conducted by ALJ Frank Barletta on April 26, 2017. (Doc. 8-3, at 31). On
August 18, 2017, ALJ Barletta issued a decision denying Mohr’s request for
social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. (Doc. 8-3, at 8-20). Nearly nine months later, on June 21, 2018, the
United States Supreme Court held that an ALJ of the Securities and
Exchange Commission qualifies as an “Officer of the United States” subject
to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. Lucia v.
S.E.C., 138 S.Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018). Then, on July 13, 2018, in response to
Lucia, the President of the United States of America issued an executive
order concluding that “at least some—and perhaps all—ALJs are ‘Officers of
the United States’ and thus subject to the Constitution’s Appointments
Clause, which governs who may appoint such officials. Exec. Order No.
13,843, 83 Fed.Reg.32,755 (July 13, 2018). A few days later, “the Acting
-2-

Commissioner of Social Security conceded the premise and in short order
reappointed the agency’s administrative judges . . . under her own authority.”
Cirko ex rel. Cirko v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 948 F.3d 148, 152 (3d Cir.2020);
see Soc. Sec. Ruling 19-1p, 2019 WL 2019 WL 1324866, at *2.
In short, at the time ALJ Barletta conducted the hearing and issued the
final decision on behalf of the Commissioner denying Mohr disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income, he was not properly
appointed under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and, thus,
Mohr is entitled to a new hearing before a different constitutionally-appointed
ALJ. See Cirko, 948 F.3d at 159 (affirming the district court’s decision and
remanding cases “to the Social Security Administration for new hearings
before constitutionally appointed ALJs other than those who presided over
Appellees’ first hearings.”).
The court has reviewed Judge Saporito’s assessment of the instant
case and agrees with the sound reasoning which led him to the conclusions
in his Report, and the court finds no clear error on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the court adopts the reasoning of Judge Saporito as the opinion
of the court.

-3-

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report of Judge Saporito, (Doc. 24), is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY;
(2) Mohr’s appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner denying
her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision
is VACATED;
(3) This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for a new hearing
before a different constitutionally-appointed ALJ, other than ALJ
Frank Barletta, for a new decision as to Mohr’s claim for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income; and
(4) the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: June 9, 2020
18-1057-01

-4-