Court Opinion

ID: 9474406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:56:25.545174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:03.823180
License: Public Domain

FAGG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The court concludes the AU’s failure to indicate in its opinion that the burden shifted to the Secretary to establish the presence of other jobs in the economy that Ulrick could perform results in an automatic reversal. I can not agree when, as here, Ulrick was represented by counsel and failed to raise the issue either to this court or to the Secretary. “Simple fairness * * * requires as a general rule that courts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice.” United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 69, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952).
Here, Ulrick had the opportunity to object to the AU’s failure to observe that the burden of proof had shifted when he appealed that decision to the Appeals Council. Furthermore, Ulrick not only failed to present the issue to the Appeals Council but has not attempted to raise it on appeal either to the district court or to this court.
Nowhere in Ulrick’s brief does he discuss the issue of whether the burden of proof properly shifted to the Secretary. Indeed, Ulrick’s brief is structured as though he assumes the AU allocated correctly the burden of proof in this case. Ulrick argues simply that there is no substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s denial of his disability claim. Thus, the court has exalted form over substance by deciding on its own motion to reverse the district court and remand the case to the Secretary for further hearings because “the AU fail[ed] to expressly recognize that [the] burden lies with the Secretary.” Ante at 1382. Because I find substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary’s decision, I would affirm.