green
Positive treatment
Trending · 65 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
18.0 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…breaks from the emerging consensus of federal courts to address this issue
at p. 420
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Hutchins v. Berryhill
But see contra Bizarre v. Berryhill , 364 F.Supp.3d 418 (M.D.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wilson v. Berryhill
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the lucia majority's statement as to timeliness was not a bright-line demarcation of how and when such a claim must be brought; it simply confirmed the obvious timeliness of the fully preserved and exhausted claim as presented.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fortin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
the commissioner does not suggest (and we have found no authority indicating) that a social security alj would be authorized to resolve or redress a constitutional challenge to his or her own authority.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SANCHEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Pa. 2019) (same); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 424-25 (M.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
VanHorn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
N.C. 2019) (noting that the petitioner filed her appeal in the district court in March 2018); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 419 (M.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. Social Security Administration
Pa. June 3, 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning and “futility of objecting before an ALJ who was powerless to decide a constitutional question”); Bradshaw v. Berryhill, 372 F. Supp. 3d 349 , 352- 362 (E.D.N.C. 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning; separation of powers concerns; reluctance to apply exhaustion requirements to constitutional issues; and courts being “poorly equipped” to fashion an issue-exhaustion requirement for SSA proceedings); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 420-26 (M.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCall v. Social Security Administration
The Commissioner’s argument only succeeds, therefore, if Plaintiff was required to exhaust the issue before the ALJ. concerns; reluctance to apply exhaustion requirements to constitutional issues; and courts being “poorly equipped” to fashion an issue-exhaustion requirement for SSA proceedings); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 420-26 (M.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Social Security Administration
Pa. June 3, 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning and “futility of objecting before an ALJ who was powerless to decide a constitutional question”); Bradshaw v. Berryhill, 372 F. Supp. 3d 349, 352-362 (E.D.N.C. 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning; separation of powers concerns; reluctance to apply exhaustion requirements to constitutional issues; and courts being “poorly equipped” to fashion an issue-exhaustion requirement for SSA proceedings); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 420-26 (M.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Byrne v. Berryhill
Dec. 3, 2019); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 419-26 (M.D.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dove-Ridgeway v. Commissioner of Social Security
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
LEXIS 125366 , at *12-13. 64 Id. (citations omitted). 65 Id. at 8, citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 767 (1975) (“[M]atter[s] of constitutional law [are] concededly beyond [SSA’s] competence to decide.”); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 424 (M.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
HAROLD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F.Supp.3d 418, 421 (M.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knox v. Social Security Administration
Pa. June 3, 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning and “futility of objecting before an ALJ who was powerless to decide a constitutional question”); Bradshaw v. Berryhill, 372 F. Supp. 3d 349, 352-362 (E.D.N.C. 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning; separation of powers concerns; reluctance to apply exhaustion requirements to constitutional issues; and courts being “poorly equipped” to fashion an issue-exhaustion requirement for SSA proceedings); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 420-26 (M.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wasserman v. Social Security Administration
Pa. June 3, 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning and “futility of objecting before an ALJ who was powerless to decide a constitutional question”); Bradshaw v. Berryhill, 372 F. Supp. 3d 349, 352-362 (E.D.N.C. 2019) (relying on Sims’ reasoning; separation of powers concerns; reluctance to apply exhaustion requirements to constitutional issues; and courts being “poorly equipped” to fashion an issue-exhaustion requirement for SSA proceedings); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 420-26 (M.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dewbre v. Commissioner of Social Security
March 22, 2019); Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 425 (M.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Widener v. Commissioner of Social Security
See Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418 (M.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Vanhorn v. Commissioner of Social Security
See Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418 , 420–21 (M.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Sexton v. Commissioner of Social Security
See Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 425 (M.D.
examined
Cited "see"
Culclasure v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Bizarre v. Berryhill , 364 F.Supp.3d 418 (M.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gilbert v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
(2×)
See 364 F. Supp. 3d at 422 , 424 (citing claimant's reply before magistrate).
cited
Cited "see"
Probst v. Berryhill
See Bizarre v. Berryhill , 364 F.Supp.3d 418 , 421, 2019 WL 1014194 , at *2 (M.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
ROSELLI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Pa. 2019) (“[W]e do not agree Social Security regulations require a claimant to raise a constitutional issue to the ALJ.”); see also Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418, 422 (M.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
BRINK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
See, eg. Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418 , 424–25 (M.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
WOJCIECHOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
See, eg. Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418 , 424–25 (M.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
POWELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
See, eg. Bizarre v. Berryhill, 364 F. Supp. 3d 418 , 424–25 (M.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith, Jr v. Berryhill
The Commissioner asserts that, notwithstanding the Bizarre and Cirko opinions from the Western District of Pennsylvania, thirty-two of thirty-three district courts that have decided this issue have rejected attacks on the validity of an SSA ALJ’s appointment where the claimant failed to make a constitutional challenge at the administrative level.2 (See Commissioner’s Brief, filed at (D.E. # 25) (citing cases)); see also Bizarre, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 420 (acknowledging that the Bizarre court’s analysis “breaks from the emerging consensus of federal courts to address this issue”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
The Commissioner asserts that, notwithstanding the Bizarre and Cirko opinions from the Western District of Pennsylvania, thirty-two of thirty-three district courts that have decided this issue have rejected attacks on the validity of an SSA ALJ’s appointment where the claimant failed to make a constitutional challenge at the administrative level.2 (See Commissioner’s Brief, filed at (D.E. # 25) (citing cases)); see also Bizarre, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 420 (acknowledging that the Bizarre court’s analysis “breaks from the emerging consensus of federal courts to address this issue”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Commissioner asserts that, notwithstanding the Bizarre and Cirko opinions from the Western District of Pennsylvania, thirty-two of thirty-three district courts that have decided this issue have rejected attacks on the validity of an SSA ALJ’s appointment where the claimant failed to make a constitutional challenge at the administrative level.2 (See Commissioner’s Brief, filed at (D.E. # 25) (citing cases)); see also Bizarre, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 420 (acknowledging that the Bizarre court’s analysis “breaks from the emerging consensus of federal courts to address this issue”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Muhammad v. Berryhill
Compare Bizarre v. Berryhill , 364 F. Supp. 3d 418 , 424 n. 4 (M.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Steven BIZARRE
v.
Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
v.
Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Mar 4, 2019.
364 F. Supp. 3d 418
Thomas D. Sutton, Levanthal, Sutton & Gornstein, Trevose, PA, for Plaintiff., D Brian Simpson, United States Attorney's Office - Social Security Divis, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant., Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge *419Plaintiff John Steven Bizarre (\Bizarre\") appeals the decision of the administrative law judge (\"ALJ\") denying Bizarre's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (Doc. 1). Before the court are Bizarre's complaint and the parties' respective briefs in support of and in opposition thereto; the report of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito
Published | Jr.
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (1)
AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the appeal (Doc. 1) of plaintiff John Steven Bizarre ("Bizarre") from the adverse decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), and the report (Doc. 24) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court deny Bizarre's appeal and affirm the decision of the Commissioner, and further upon consideration of Bizarre's objections (Doc. 25) to the report and the Commissioner's response (Doc. 26) thereto, and for the reasons stated in the court's accompanying memorandum of today's date, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The court declines to adopt the magistrate judge's report (Doc. 24) to the extent it recommends that the court reject Bizarre's claim under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution for failure to raise same before the Commissioner or the administrative law judge in the first instance.
2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Bizarre and against the Commissioner as set forth in the following paragraph.
3. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner with instructions to conduct a new hearing and issue a new decision in accordance with this order and the court's memorandum of today's date. The new hearing shall be conducted by a different administrative law judge who has been properly appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.
4. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter CLOSE this case.