Improving Access to Clinical Trials Act

Guest · Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:07 pm Post subject: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

In an action for judicial review to the district court the procedure usually calls for each party to file motions for summary judgment and supporting briefs. I have never understood this. Judicial review is not like a trial court considering facts and then determining if one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judicial review in a social security case is simply to look at the case and see if the decision is supported by substantial evidence or there is an error of law.

The use of the summary judgment paradigm may have consequences if there is an appeal to the circuit court. Is the circuit court supposed to review the case de novo or does it give deference with the district court's decision to give summary judgment?

Craig Jarvis · Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 04:40 pm Post subject:

"Summary Judgment" is not really a good way to describe what is going on at the district court. It is a type of appellate review. The Court of Appeals has de novo review of the district court's decision, however that de novo review is bound by the jurisdiction of 205(g). That jurisdiction is to review the decisions of the Commissioner for substantial evidence.

Unknown · Guest

I have seen the suggestion that instead of summary judgment the proper request would be for judgment on the pleadings.
Based on what are admittedly beginning to be rather distant memories of having once been a law clerk to a circuit court judge, I don't think it makes any difference for appellate review.

David Axinn · Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 2 Location: Hollidaysburg, Pa.

Summary Judgment makes no sense - if we look a the S.J. rule, we should be supporting our motion with affidavits and all sorts of extraneous material. The Court should just issue a briefing schedule as the appellate courts do. But it appears to be a longstanding custom, and is a familiar procedure to a trial court.

Once the form is in your computer, it doesn't take long to prepare and file the motion, so why complain.

Guest · Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 05:27 pm Post subject:

The problem or potential problem is that the circuit court will give some kind of deference to the district court's decision because its summary judgment. On review of summary judgment, isn't it the clearly erroneous standard for facts? Be that as it may, this has nothing to do with judicial review of a social security decision.

MikeWalters · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1315 Location: Cincinnati OH

I weigh into an area from which I should refrain weighing in because I rarely litigated even when I was in private practice. But a quick search reveals dozens of cases in which Circuit Courts have stated that the standard of review of a District Court decision in a denial of Social Security benefits is de novo. Moreover, outside of the administrative law context (in admin law there is of course deference to the findings of fact of an administrative agency) the standard of review for summary judgment is always de novo.

I am aware of the incongruity in calling it summary judgment, but I'm curious if you are aware of caselaw that indicates it makes a difference?

Flatlander · Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 135

In the District of VT (and I assume the entire 2d Cir), the procedure is now a "Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner."