Carr v. Saul, No. 19-1442; Davis v. Saul, No. 20-105: Whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §301 et seq., forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.

“State” is defined as: (1) the 50 States; (2) the District of Columbia; (3) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; (4) the United States Virgin Islands; (5) Guam; (6) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and (7) the American Samoa.“Local Government” is defined as: (1) County; (2) Municipality; (3) Town; (4) Township; (5) Village; (6) Parish; (7) Borough; or (8) other unit of general government below the State level with a population that exceeds 500,000.“Indian tribe” is defined as in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304(e)).The Fund provisions can be found as a new Title VI to the Social Security Act (42 USC §301, et seq.). The Fund reserves $3,000,000,000 for distribution among the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, United States Virgin Islands, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.

Additionally, the CARES Act provides for the expansion of unemployment insurance for unemployed workers as well as clarifying and technical amendments to the leave provisions under Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) that we addressed in our March 23 bulletin.Coronavirus Relief FundThe CARES Act amends the Social Security Act (42 USC § 301, et seq.) to create the $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund (the “Relief Fund”) (42 USC §601).

On April 1, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184, holding that a Social Security Administration (SSA) vocational expert’s opinion may constitute “substantial evidence” supporting an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) factual findings, even when the expert refuses to disclose the data underlying the opinion. During an informal hearing on an applicant’s eligibility for benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., an SSA administrative law judge relied on expert testimony about the availability of certain jobs to deny the applicant — former construction worker Michael Biestek — benefits. The vocational expert based her testimony on private market-survey data but refused to provide that data to the applicant.

On April 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Kentucky declared unconstitutional the provision of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act that terminates income benefits on the date the employee qualifies for normal old-age retirement benefits. In Marshall Parker v. Webster County Coal, LLC, etal and Webster County Coal, LLC v. Marshall Parker, et al, claim number 2014-SC-000536-WC, the Supreme Court held that KRS 342.730(4) violates the Equal Protection clause.KRS 342.730(4), which was enacted with the overhaul of Kentucky’s workers’ compensation system effective 12/12/96, reads as follows:All income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter shall terminate as of the date upon which the employee qualifies for normal old-age Social Security retirement benefits under the United States Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. secs. 301 to 1397f, or two (2) years after the employee's injury or last exposure, whichever last occurs.The constitutionality of the statute had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2002.

KRS 342.730(4), which was enacted with the overhaul of Kentucky’s workers’ compensation system effective 12/12/96, reads as follows: All income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter shall terminate as of the date upon which the employee qualifies for normal old-age Social Security retirement benefits under the United States Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. secs. 301 to 1397f, or two (2) years after the employee's injury or last exposure, whichever last occurs. The constitutionality of the statute had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2002.