Opinion ID: 2735910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Signature

Text: Creech argued in the district court that reversal was required because the Commissioner allowed an ALJ who had not presided over the hearing, and to whom the case had not been reassigned, to author the unfavorable decision contrary to the Commissioner’s own procedures set forth in the Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX). On appeal, Creech argues that this error denied him due process, violated his right to a de novo hearing under 42 U.S.C. § 405(b), and was not in compliance with the procedures set forth in HALLEX I-2-8- 40. HALLEX is an internal manual that serves to convey “‘guiding principles, procedural guidance and information’ to adjudicators and staff of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.” Bowie v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 539 F.3d 395, 397 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting HALLEX I-1-0-1). One provision, HALLEX I-2-8-40, addresses situations in which the ALJ who conducted the Case No. 14-5032 3 hearing is not available to issue or to sign a decision. First, if the ALJ is unavailable to issue a decision for a substantial period of time, the Hearing Office Chief ALJ (HOCALJ) may reassign the case to another ALJ who determines whether another hearing is necessary. There is no indication here that Creech’s case was reassigned. Second, if the ALJ has approved a final draft of the decision but is unavailable to sign the decision with either a “wet” signature or a “verified” electronic signature, the HOCALJ may be authorized to sign the final decision on behalf of the temporarily unavailable ALJ. The record supports the district court’s finding that this is what occurred here. Specifically, the record reflects that the hearing was conducted by ALJ Arnold and that the final decision was signed with the electronic signature “Don C. Paris for Charles J. Arnold.” There is no dispute that Don Paris was the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ). In addition, the denial decision was accompanied by a separate notice of the same date from ALJ Arnold, which stated: “I carefully reviewed the facts of your case and made the enclosed decision.” There is no basis to conclude other than that the HOCALJ signed the decision on behalf of the ALJ who had conducted the hearing and drafted the decision. As such, we need not decide whether the internal procedures of HALLEX I-2-8-40 create procedural due process rights. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Colvin, No. 3:13-032-DCR, 2014 WL 640990, at  (E.D. Ky. Feb. 18, 2014) (citing cases). Moreover, even district courts that have granted relief for failure to comply with HALLEX have required that the plaintiff demonstrate prejudice from the failure to follow the procedures. See id. Case No. 14-5032 4