Beaty v. Berryhill

Filing 13

ORDER directing parties to submit supplemental briefing by Friday, October 5, 2018. Signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8

DANIEL SCOTT BEATY,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

NO. C17-6056-RSM-JPD

v.

ORDER DIRECTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy
Commissioner of Social Security for
Operations,
Defendant.

14
15

The Court has reviewed the record and the parties’ briefing in this matter and directs

16

the parties to submit supplemental briefing explaining whether recent revisions to Listing

17

12.05, which became effective January 17, 2017, are applicable to this appeal.

18

The issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff’s mental impairments met or equaled

19

Listing 12.05, 40 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1 § 12.05. Dkt. 10 at 1. The ALJ found that

20

plaintiff did not meet the provisions of paragraph D of the version of Listing 12.05 that was

21

applicable at the time of plaintiff’s application for benefits, the hearing, and the ALJ’s

22

decision. Tr. 43-44. The ALJ did not conduct any analysis under paragraph C of the listing,

23

but it appears to the Court that plaintiff’s impairments may meet that provision.

24
ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING - 1

1

However, Listing 12.05 was revised, effective January 17, 2017. Revised Medical

2

Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders, 81 Fed. Reg. 66138-01 (Sept. 26, 2016). The

3

revisions deleted paragraphs C and D and revised former paragraphs A and B. Id. The

4

revisions provide that:

5
6
7
8

we will use these final rules on and after their effective date, in any case in
which we make a determination or decision. We expect that Federal courts will
review our final decisions using the rules that were in effect at the time we
issued the decisions. If a court reverses our final decision and remands a case
for further administrative proceedings after the effective date of these final
rules, we will apply these final rules to the entire period at issue in the decision
we make after the court's remand.

9

Id. The ALJ issued his decision on May 18, 2016—prior to the effective date of the revised

10

listing—and applied the version then applicable, which contained paragraphs C and D. The

11

Appeals Council, however, did not deny plaintiff’s appeal until July 6, 2017; thus, the decision

12

was not final until after the effective date of the new regulations. 20 C.F.R. §416.1401.

13

Plaintiff’s briefing did not discuss whether the revisions were applicable. Dkts. 10, 12. The

14

Commissioner’s brief simply quoted the revised listing with no indication that it differed from

15

the version applied by the ALJ, and no discussion of why the revised version should apply.

16

Dkt. 11 at 5. Application of the revised listing here, where the application for benefits, hearing

17

and ALJ decision occurred under the former listing, raises issues of retroactivity.

18

“Retroactivity is not favored in the law.” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S.

19

204, 208 (1988). While Congress has the power to enact statutes that apply retroactively if it

20

expressly states its intent to do so, a regulatory agency cannot promulgate retroactive

21

regulations unless it has been given such authority by Congress. Id. Congress has not granted

22

the SSA retroactive rulemaking authority. Bowen, 488 U.S. at 213-14. See also Frost v.

23

Barnhart 314 F.3d 359, 371 (9th Cir. 2002) (Beezer, J., dissenting); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc.

24

Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 645 (6th. Cir. 2006). A statute or regulation has retroactive effects if it
ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING - 2

1

“attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment. . . . [F]amiliar

2

considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations offer sound

3

guidance.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270 (1984).

4

Applying Landgraf, the Ninth Circuit has held that the application of an amendment to

5

the Social Security Act to cases that were not finally decided at the time of the effective date

6

“represents a retroactive application of the statute.” Ball v. Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 820-21

7

(9th Cir. 2001). In Ball, plaintiff’s hearing before the ALJ had occurred two years before the

8

effective date of a statutory amendment removing alcoholism as a basis of disability, but the

9

ALJ did not issue his decision until after the effective date. 254 F.2d at 820. The court found

10
11

that this constituted retroactive application.1
Similarly, in Maines v. Colvin, No. 14-15258, 666 Fed.Appx. 607, 608 (9th Cir. Nov.

12

16, 2016), the court reversed a District Court decision requiring the application on remand of a

13

revised listing whose effective date was after plaintiff filed for benefits, but before the

14

decisions of the ALJ and the Review Council. Id. The revised listing contained effectiveness

15

language identical to that in the listing at issue here.2 The court, citing Ball, stated that

16

“[a]bsent express direction from Congress to the contrary, the ALJ should have continued to

17

evaluate [plaintiff’s] application under the listings in effect at the time she filed her

18

application.” Id.

19
20

Courts in this District, citing Maines, have applied former 12.05C in judicial appeals
after the effective date of the revised regulations—albeit in cases in which the agency decision

21
22
23
24

1

The court upheld the retroactive application of the amendment because the
amendment was a congressional enactment and reflected the necessary congressional intent of
retroactivity. 254 F.2d at 821.
2
Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Endocrine Disorders, 76 Fed. Reg. 19692-01
at n.3.
ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING - 3

1

became final before the effective date. See, e.g., Blacktongue v. Berryhill, 229 F.Supp.3d

2

1216, 1221 n.6 (W.D. Wash. 2017); Caffall v. Berryhill, No. C17-5051 MAT, 2017 WL

3

5009692 at *2 n.2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2017). Other courts have likewise held that

4

application of revised regulations in pending cases is improperly retroactive. See Nash v.

5

Apfel, No. 99-7109, 215 F.3d 1337, 2000 WL 710491 at *2 (10th Cir. June 1, 2000) (Table)

6

(applying listing change retroactively to claimant who was erroneously denied benefits under

7

an earlier listing, even though claimants who had been granted benefits could continue to

8

receive them, would be a “perverse result”); Kokal v. Massanari, 163 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1134

9

(N.D. Cal. 2001) (applying the repeal of a listing to cases pending on administrative or judicial

10

appeal “is erroneous because it would result in impermissible retrospectivity without

11

Congressional authority and would be unfairly retroactive.”); Cherry v. Barnhart, 327

12

F.Supp.2d 1347, 1357-59 (N.D. Okla. 2004) (application of listing deletion to case filed, but

13

not initially determined, before effective date was impermissible retroactive rulemaking);

14

Portlock v. Barnhart, 208 F.Supp.2d 451, 461 (D.Del.2002) (application of revised listing to

15

claim decided by ALJ but pending Appeals Council review on effective date was

16

impermissible retroactive application); but see Combs, 459 F.3d at 651(divided plurality

17

concluded that application of listing repeal to claims filed before the change and still pending

18

after it is not retroactive because change was procedural, not substantive).

19

Before this Court can decide the merits of plaintiff’s appeal, it must determine which

20

version of Listing 12.05 applies. The parties are directed to file briefs addressing this issue,

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//
ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING - 4

1

including discussion of the cases discussed above, or other relevant authority. If the former

2

listing applies, the parties should further address the applicability of former Listing 12.05C to

3

this case. The parties are directed to file their supplemental briefing by Friday, October 5,

4

2018.

5

DATED this 28th day of September, 2018.

A

6
7

JAMES P. DONOHUE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING - 5