The Singapore News Online, Breaking News, Latest News & Headlines

     After the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) as then appointed were unconstitutional, there was the inevitable issue of which Social Security claimants would get new hearings. The Social Security Administration argued that the issue had to have been raised before the Administrative Law Judge or at least before the Appeals Council. They have now given up on the argument that Lucia had to have been raised before the ALJ and have remanded all of the cases where the Lucia issue was raised at least before the Appeals Council. The issue of whether the issue had to have been raised at least before the Appeals Council is being litigated in the federal courts.       We have our first Court of Appeals opinions in one of the post- Lucia Social Security cases, Cirko v. Commissioner , a Third Circuit case. Social Security lost. The Court held that it did not matter that the Lucia issue wasn't raised until a...

     The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Board , a case that may have implications for Social Security. Maybe before describing Salinas, I need to make sure everybody knows what the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is. RRB is an agency created around the same time as what was then called the Social Security Board. RRB administers some benefits such as unemployment that the Social Security Administration (SSA) does not now administer. However, in most respects the RRB statutes and regulations are almost identical to SSA's. Because it's much smaller, it's almost always RRB that is affected by SSA litigation. Salinas , however, is the exception to that pattern. Here's the stated issue in Salinas: Whether, under Section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and Section 8 of the Railroad Retirement Act , the Railroad Retirement Board�s denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a �final decision� subject to ...