Lockwood is Dead, Long Live HALLEX

This goes in the category of "I told you so." 

Lockwood v. Commissioner Soc. Sec. Admin.  stands for the proposition that an ALJ need not discuss why she didn't use a higher age category in a borderline age situation.  The court rejected use of POMS  DI 25015.005(B)(4) as applying to the burden of explaining the decision to use the chronological age -- because it wasn't in force when the ALJ decided the case; because it conflicted with HALLEX II-3-5-2; and because the courts don't enforce either HALLEX or POMS. 

We know that when the agency tells us what a regulation means, that interpretation of the regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.  Washington State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler ("While [POMS]administrative interpretations are not products of formal rulemaking, they nevertheless warrant respect."  Keffeler continues:

In short, the Commissioner's interpretation of her own regulations is eminently sensible and should have been given deference under Auer v. Robbins. 

Auer gives controlling deference to an interpretation of a regulation unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.  We eliminate strike three against POMS; let's look at strikes one and two. 

Strike two and inconsistency with HALLEX falls today.  HALLEX I-2-2-42 states clearly that the ALJ will explain why she used the chronological age instead of the higher age category whenever the borderline age situation occurs.  HALLEX and POMS now agree, an explanation is due. 

Strike one and applying the interpretation to the case the court has before it -- IS NOT A RETROACTIVE PROBLEM.  In re Schooner Peggy holds that the court applies the law in effect at the time of decision, not the law in effect at the time of the act.  The Supreme Court grants an exception to prevent manifest injustice.  The ALJ is not a party to court proceedings and it is not unjust to have administrative decisions get decided according to the law as we now understand it. 

Lockwood is dead.  Long live HALLEX ... and POMS too. 

 

Lockwood v. Astrue

My level of angst rose Friday and approaches crescendo this morning.  Under the Supreme Court's docketing procedures, Lockwood got distributed for conference on April 29, 2011.  The Court will post the order list this morning.  The order list for April 25 was 9 pages long of certiorari denied, habeas denied, mandamus denied, rehearing denied, attorney discipline, and a handful of orders in pending cases.  Most other order lists have 2 cases with certiorari granted.  Thousands of cases filed each year, less than 100 get granted and set for oral argument.  The Supremes have a pretty good idea of how many cases it wants to hear next hear and already has a calendar of oral argument days.

The advertised publication time is 10 AM Eastern Time. At 7:05 AM Pacific Time, I am still waiting.

There it is.  Certiorari denied.  Posted the news to my  brethren on a private list.  Truly disappointed for the simple reason that we should be able to trust that what the government says it means.  Maybe I am naive or yearn for a utopia that will never appear.  But when any agency clears away the haze of ambiguity of a regulation, we should demand the right to bank on it.  Litigation ensues when rights and results are unclear.  If we all know the result based on settled law, then litigation turns on factual disputes only.  When the law is not clear or when one side (the federal government) can run away from clarity, then the whole system fails.

It is an old adage for lawyers.  When the facts are one your side, argue the facts.  When the facts are not on your side, argue the law.  When the law is not on your side, confuse the issues.  I tip my hat to the lawyers that represent the Social Security Administration ... you certainly did confuse the issue on this one.

It isn't that there isn't blame to go around.  The lawyers for SSA blame the lawyers for the claimant for not raising the issue or not raising the issue properly.  Perhaps that is permissible in a truly adversarial position but the Social Security Act is different.  It is non adversarial.  Government lawyers are also different.  They have an obligation not only to a particular case but to the public at large.

More on this topic in the months to come.

Pending at the Supreme Court

Lockwood v. Astrue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.  Your erstwhile writer acts the attorney of record.  Lockwood concerns application of the borderline age case for an individual about 1 month from turning 55 but the Administrative Law Judge treats her as 54.  The regulations promise that the ALJ won't do that.  The program operations manual tells SSA to explain why it did or didn't take a flexible approach to age.  At issue is whether the Social Security Administration can promise the public one thing in a policy and procedure manual and then run away from that promise in federal court.

It is the social contract theory in administrative law.  The Supreme Court changed the paradigm in Chevron.  Regulations, not the Courts, get first crack at refining an ambiguous statute.  Auer extends that doctrine.  The agency gets the first crack at refining an ambiguous regulation.  But the Social Security Administration want to defend ALJ decisions in Court more than it wants to defend the right of every federal agency to promulgate regulations and then tell the world what those regulations mean.

Just to make it interesting, the Acting Solicitor General declined to tell the Supreme Court what the executive branch of government thinks about Auer deference.  The SG didn't do that in Parra v. Astrue, when the government told the Supremes that the Ninth had the whole deference thing wrong.