Reported / Citable
Background
The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of a March 2023 application for disability insurance benefits. After an initial hearing, Appeals Council review, and a remand hearing, an administrative law judge again denied benefits in February 2025.
The plaintiff raised three challenges: the ALJ was allegedly appointed improperly; the ALJ improperly disregarded the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 100% disability rating; and the ALJ relied on unreliable vocational-expert job-number estimates. The Commissioner agreed that the vocational-evidence issue warranted a sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended vacating the Commissioner’s decision and remanding for further administrative proceedings, including additional vocational development. Without deciding the merits of the appointments challenge, the magistrate judge also recommended that a different ALJ hear the case—one not appointed by Nancy Berryhill or another acting commissioner who lacked the then-sitting president’s personal approval—because that relief would not prejudice the Commissioner.
The magistrate judge rejected the plaintiff’s challenge concerning the VA’s 100% disability rating. The recommendation concluded that the Social Security Administration’s 2017 regulations validly permit an ALJ to treat another agency’s disability determination as neither valuable nor persuasive and to omit analysis of that determination. The regulations fell within the Commissioner’s statutory authority and were neither arbitrary nor capricious, including under the framework described in Loper Bright.
Key Takeaways
- The parties’ agreement that the vocational expert’s job-number evidence required further development supported a sentence-four remand.
- For claims governed by the 2017 regulations, an ALJ need not assign weight to or separately analyze a VA disability rating.
- The magistrate judge did not resolve the constitutional challenge to the prior ALJ’s appointment but recommended reassignment to avoid the issue on remand.
Why It Matters
The recommendation reinforces the post-2017 distinction between VA and Social Security disability determinations. Even a 100% VA disability rating does not control the Social Security analysis or require express consideration under the revised regulations.
It also illustrates a pragmatic remedy for disputed ALJ appointments: a court may recommend a new hearing before a differently appointed ALJ without deciding the underlying constitutional question, particularly when remand is independently required.