New SSA Case Law Scares People

Analysis of new SSA case law on procedural due process in Social Security disability claims and its impact on claimants.

Ask about this video. Answers come from its transcript only — with the timestamp, so you can check them.

Generated from the transcript and can be wrong — check the timestamp.

Key Takeaways

ALJs may close the record earlier than promised, which can raise procedural due process concerns.
Post-hearing open record periods are critical for submitting additional medical evidence.
SSA is under pressure to expedite disability claims, sometimes at the expense of thorough evidence review.
Claimants must be vigilant about deadlines and procedural promises to protect their rights.
Legal errors by ALJs do not always lead to case remands if outcome impact is not shown.

What the video covers

The video discusses a recent court ruling upholding a rule that allows ALJs to close the record early in Social Security disability cases.
Focus is on a plaintiff who argued her procedural due process rights were violated when the ALJ closed the record 13 days after the hearing instead of the promised 30 days.
Explanation of the Social Security administrative process levels: initial filing, reconsideration, ALJ hearing, Appeals Council, District Court, Circuit Court, and Supreme Court.
The concept of 'post-hearing open record' is explained, allowing claimants to submit additional evidence within a set period after the hearing.
The plaintiff claimed the premature closure prevented submission of critical medical evidence, potentially prejudicing her case.
The ALJ’s early closure was challenged as a violation of both procedural due process and SSA regulations under 20 CFR.
The video highlights the SSA’s effort to speed up adjudication due to a large backlog of disability claims.
The plaintiff’s claim was ultimately denied because she could not prove that the additional evidence would have changed the outcome.
Concerns are raised about the integrity and fairness of the adjudicative process when judges do not keep procedural promises.
The video encourages viewers to consider the implications of this case law on future Social Security disability applicants.

Chapters

What is the 'post-hearing open record' in Social Security disability cases?

It is a period after the disability hearing during which claimants can submit additional medical evidence to support their claim, typically lasting 30 days.

Why was the plaintiff upset about the ALJ closing the record early?

The ALJ closed the record 13 days after the hearing instead of the promised 30 days, preventing the plaintiff from submitting additional medical evidence, which she argued violated her procedural due process rights.

Does an ALJ's procedural error always result in a case remand?

No, courts often require the plaintiff to show that the error likely affected the outcome; if not, the error may be considered harmless and not warrant a remand.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

Okay, let's get right into this. First off, I want to apologize because I never really went live to answer questions last week. As you know, last week—technically still this week—was my birthday week. I didn't actually get to do much celebratory stuff, but it was a good week due to accomplishments.

Speaker A

do much celebratory stuff but it was a good week due to accomplishments now with that said uh we are going to be going ahead and going through a couple of videos today we're going to be starting off with a new circuit court I

Speaker A

Now, with that said, we are going to be going ahead and going through a couple of videos today. We're going to be starting off with a new Circuit Court, I believe—no, sorry, District Court—basic law that was created. No, no, no, no. District Court and Circuit Court upholds the N. This went all the way to the Circuit Court, so the way it works is

Speaker A

initial filing reconsideration alj hearing level Appeals Council District Court Circuit Court Supreme Court so what we're going to be focusing on is why the court directly under the Supreme Court of the United States upheld this very very scary rule for Social Security

Speaker A

initial filing, reconsideration, ALJ hearing level, Appeals Council, District Court, Circuit Court, Supreme Court. So what we're going to be focusing on is why the court directly under the Supreme Court of the United States upheld this very, very scary rule for Social Security disability applicants.

Speaker A

appeals the plth appealed to the United States District Court uh alleging that her procedural due process rights were violated specifically she argued that the alj errored by closing the record early 13 days after the hearing despite having promised a 30-day period to

Speaker A

Now, we're going to be going through this in a relatively quick way. This is a brief from Brian Kosi, from his brief of the federal appeals firm. Let's go through it real quick. All right, federal court of

Speaker A

submit stuff or specific stuff right because sometimes the judge won't allow anything it might be just a specific thing to be integrated into the record right okay so bottom line is post hearing it's after the hearing open record the record will remain open for

Speaker A

appeals, the plaintiff appealed to the United States District Court, alleging that her procedural due process rights were violated. Specifically, she argued that the ALJ erred by closing the record early, 13 days after the hearing, despite having promised a 30-day period to

Speaker A

the claim 13 days after the hearing doesn't seem fair seems like a shitty deal right well it is it really is it shouldn't happen that way now remember over the entire breath of this video there is an underlying tone an

Speaker A

submit additional medical records. All right, so how does this work? The way it works is that after a disability hearing, if records are still outstanding, the judge will give what's called post-hearing open record. What's post-hearing open record? It means that you can still

Speaker A

through as fast as they can why is that the reason why is that they're trying to speed up the adjudication process so just keep that in mind as we go through this claim all right so now you get she

Speaker A

submit stuff or specific stuff, right? Because sometimes the judge won't allow anything. It might be just a specific thing to be integrated into the record, right? Okay, so bottom line is post-hearing—it's after the hearing—open record. The record will remain open for

Speaker A

could could potentially support her claim she asserted that this violated both procedural due process and specific SSA regulations that govern the administrative process now the way it's supposed to work is judge gives you 30 days if the records aren't in by 30 days

Speaker A

you to submit stuff to be considered as part of the actual decision. Cool. So in this case, they gave her 30 days post-hearing of open record. Cool, you got that. But with that said, the judge then closed

Speaker A

what's going on y yada now in this instance right the claim it was promised by a federal judge right administrative law judges are federal Social Security judges so they were promised on the record 30 days but then they only got

Speaker A

the claim 13 days after the hearing. Doesn't seem fair. Seems like a shitty deal, right? Well, it is. It really is. It shouldn't happen that way. Now remember, over the entire breadth of this video, there is an underlying tone, an

Speaker A

judges decision to prematurely closed the record for submitting evidence specifically she argued that the alj's actions amounted to a legal error as it violated procedural due process okay so constitutional claim and the specific regulations on under 20 CFR

Speaker A

underlying idea that I want you to keep in your mind: the SSA is trying to get as many cases through and push through—I mean, all these disability claims that have this massive backlog, this massive waiting list—they're trying to push them

Speaker A

Kathleen Fon from New Jersey howdy howdy here's why we want this rule okay just to kind of go through this real quick we want this rule to exist because we want judges to give a little bit extra time

Speaker A

through as fast as they can. Why is that? The reason why is that they're trying to speed up the adjudication process. So just keep that in mind as we go through this claim. All right, so now you get she

Speaker A

827 which is a HIPPA and if they can't get the records with an 827 Hippa a federal Hippa from a federal judge then the judge is going to go ahead usually and subpoena the record so long as the

Speaker A

had 30 days post-hearing to go ahead and submit records. The judge killed the claim after 13, obviously gave a denial. Procedural due process concerns: the plaintiff highlighted that the premature closure of the record prevented her from submitting further medical evidence that

Speaker A

really good food for them I'm excited to try out with them so that's very very good very cool thank you thank you so um real quick with this right now okay uh so let's go through it San hanana

Speaker A

could potentially support her claim. She asserted that this violated both procedural due process and specific SSA regulations that govern the administrative process. Now, the way it's supposed to work is the judge gives you 30 days. If the records aren't in by 30 days,

Speaker A

were crucial and that the inability to submit them prejudiced her case as it deprived the alj of potentially significant evidence that could have altered the decision on her disability claim now what's really sad about this is that it is for most instances a

Speaker A

usually the clerk will call the law firm and say, "Hey, where's the medical records? What's going on with this? Hey, not good." And then at that point, the attorney will say, "Oh, let me check on, let me see what's going on," yada yada. Now, in this instance, right, the claim was promised by a federal judge. Administrative law judges are federal Social Security judges, so they were promised on the record 30 days, but then they only got

Speaker A

think happened and then we'll keep rolling through here I'm curious to see what you think in the comments below the plaintiff also argued that the Integrity of the adjudicative process was compromised by the alj's failure to keep his promise and hold the record open for

Speaker A

essentially 13 days before the claim was killed off. Seems like a bait and switch, which kind of is, right? That's what it is. It's a bait and switch. Here's the harm: the plaintiff, San Hanana C, argued that she was harmed by the administrative law

Speaker A

said okay alj screwed up all right the judge made a mistake the judge made a boo boo it was a harmless error they're saying because sanana did not show that the outcome would likely have been different had the additional evidence

Speaker A

judge's decision to prematurely close the record for submitting evidence. Specifically, she argued that the ALJ's actions amounted to a legal error as it violated procedural due process. Okay, so constitutional claim and the specific regulations under 20 CFR

Speaker A

all the time or whenever it's requested or within the 510 day Rule and I'll do a video on the 510 day rule then what you end up with is a very very scary result where the judges are going to rely on

Speaker A

44935 subsection A. This regulation requires that the record be kept open for a set period to allow claimants to submit additional evidence which could impact the outcome of their cases. And here's why we want this rule. I see

Speaker A

decided and what they decided was basically that because she wasn't able to prove that the medical evidence would be material and changing the outcome of her claim she doesn't get a remand I disagree if I were a judge at the alj

Speaker A

Kathleen Fon from New Jersey. Howdy, howdy. Here's why we want this rule. Okay, just to kind of go through this real quick: we want this rule to exist because we want judges to give a little bit extra time

Speaker A

their life The Catch 22 the plaintive could not show that the medical records would change the outcome of the case because the doctors were not complying you hear that the doctors were not complying the pl's attorney intended on

Speaker A

in case a medical facility doesn't go ahead and submit the records quickly enough to the attorney, right? And sometimes the medical facility doesn't submit the records at all to the attorney, and then the attorney has to ask the judge to obtain the records via

Speaker A

the medical facility did not participate the 30 days didn't get to run the attorney didn't get to request an 827 or subpoena be used and then at that point it didn't matter because it was going to Appeals Council now you would think at

Speaker A

827, which is a HIPAA, and if they can't get the records with an 827 HIPAA, a federal HIPAA from a federal judge, then the judge is going to go ahead usually and subpoena the record, so long as the

Speaker A

where they're pushing a subpena you know which is to demand the records then at that point you've got an interesting situation because at that point you're basically saying well we didn't have the records we didn't uh we didn't get them

Speaker A

records are relevant, right? Can't just be like one page of irrelevant yada yada. Diana Fernandez, thank you, thank you for the $10 donation. That's awesome, very cool. I will buy them some goodies. I absolutely will. Actually, have some

Speaker A

somebody 30 days and give them 13 that's a lie that's a lie it's a Judicial lie like they could they could file a complaint against this judge and go up the entire route because the judge did not follow what the judge said that that

Speaker A

really good food for them. I'm excited to try out with them, so that's very, very good. Very cool, thank you, thank you. So, um, real quick with this, right now, okay, uh, so let's go through it. San Hanana

Speaker A

who are having a bad day five days right that's the number just gets less and less and less as to how much time you have to actually get this thing in end result the case went all the way up to

Speaker A

asserted that because the ALJ closed the record 13 days after the hearing rather than after the 30 days she had promised, it prevented her from submitting additional medical records from her healthcare provider, Project Vaita Health Center. She claimed that these records

Speaker A

this situation what are you guys thinking is acceptable because for me in this situation uh the alj did something wrong now I I I don't report alj's because if you start reporting alj's bottom line is you're going to go ahead

Speaker A

were crucial and that the inability to submit them prejudiced her case as it deprived the ALJ of potentially significant evidence that could have altered the decision on her disability claim. Now, what's really sad about this is that it is, for most instances, a

Speaker A

is um usually when you go ahead and appeal you don't get wacky situations like this now I've noticed that some of the circuit court and District Court decisions that we're getting are a little bit they're off they're they're

Speaker A

procedural issue where she had the right. She was promised by a federal judge. There's a federal rule by the SSA under 404, so she should have been given this option. Let's see what happened. Okay, you guys tell me what you

Speaker A

the medical facility is not willing to partake in sending out the records right to me this should have been a situation where okay 30 days come along hey attorney the clerk you know of the judge reaches out hey attorney where's the

Speaker A

think happened, and then we'll keep rolling through here. I'm curious to see what you think in the comments below. The plaintiff also argued that the integrity of the adjudicative process was compromised by the ALJ's failure to keep his promise and hold the record open for

Speaker A

subpoena that's how this should have come down that's how this should have been processed but they didn't go that route they said judges lie is wrong but acceptable because even though there's an error as to law and how it was done

Speaker A

the full 30 days. However, the court found that San Hanana did not adequately demonstrate that the additional evidence would have changed the outcome of the decision. They concluded that while the ALJ's failure to follow her stated procedure wasn't error, right? So they

Speaker A

still think this should be a remand situation where you go in front of the judge again and you get basically another hearing to at least fix those issues that are in the claim or have a denovo where you're doing a new one the

Speaker A

said, okay, ALJ screwed up. All right, the judge made a mistake. The judge made a boo-boo. It was a harmless error, they're saying, because San Hanana did not show that the outcome would likely have been different had the additional evidence

Speaker A

when people lose fa faith in our adjudication system for our social security benefits whether it's supplemental security income Social Security discipline Insurance retirement widows Etc whatever the program is when we lose faith in our judges ability to deliver a proper a a just decision then

Speaker A

been considered. Thus, the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, finding that the ALJ's error did not warrant a remand of the case. Now, here's the problem. Okay, I don't like this decision because if you don't give enough time

Speaker A

basically for the judge to do that even though they shouldn't have done that it doesn't make it uh you know on its face okay but it does call into question whether or not judges will use this to go ahead manipulated in the future for

Speaker A

all the time or whenever it's requested or within the 5-10 day rule—and I'll do a video on the 5-10 day rule—then what you end up with is a very, very scary result where the judges are going to rely on

Speaker A

actually come forward the SSA wants to have hearings on the date that they occur and not have to worry about open records thereafter so you know I think this rule is kind of in line with what the SSA would like to see which is not a

Speaker A

this: "Well, I screwed up, but it's not warranting a remand, so I'm not worried about it. Send it up, get it off my docket." I don't like this claim. I don't like what happened, and I don't like what they

Speaker A

to talk about let me put up right here okay which disability claimants are the least safe from getting reviewed and having CDI units actually go ahead and follow them around that'll be the next video I will catch everybody in about uh 10 minutes

Speaker A

decided. And what they decided was basically that because she wasn't able to prove that the medical evidence would be material in changing the outcome of her claim, she doesn't get a remand. I disagree. If I were a judge at the ALJ,

Speaker A

if you're looking for representation only if you're looking for representation remember normally Tuesdays and Thursdays I go live to answer questions on YouTube and in the future we have some new gear here which is sitting right next to me where we're

Speaker A

Appeals Council, District, or Circuit Court level, I would not have d

Speaker A

the next video in about 5 to 10 minutes and I will see you there all right I'll catch you a little bit later byebye everybody bye bye

Topics:Social Security DisabilitySSA Case LawProcedural Due ProcessALJ HearingPost-Hearing Open RecordDisability ClaimsSocial Security AppealsSSISSDIAdministrative Law Judge

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries, speaker detection, and unlimited transcriptions.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools