## Facts

- George L. Barry, an unemployed carpenter, suffered a heart attack in January 1981 and later alleged ongoing chest and back pain that prevented sustained work.
- In 1982, Barry applied for Social Security disability benefits.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded benefits, finding Barry limited to sedentary work under agency regulations.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services implemented the “Bellmon Review Program” to conduct “own-motion” review of ALJ decisions, targeting ALJs with high benefit-allowance rates.
- Targeting criteria initially included ALJs with allowance rates at or above 66 2/3%; later criteria also considered the rate of Appeals Council reversals, but the targeted pool was limited to high-allowance ALJs.
- Once an ALJ was targeted, all of that ALJ’s decisions were subjected to heightened Appeals Council scrutiny; targeted ALJs could be required to attend counseling and were threatened with further action if allowance rates remained high.
- Under this program, the Appeals Council took Barry’s favorable ALJ decision on its own motion and reversed it, finding Barry capable of medium work rather than sedentary work.
- Barry sued, asserting the program violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by creating structural pressure on ALJs to deny claims; both sides moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Barry had standing to challenge the Bellmon Review Program, or whether any injury was solely to ALJs.
2. Whether the Bellmon Review Program’s selective targeting and intensified oversight of high-allowance ALJs violated claimants’ Fifth Amendment due process right to an impartial decision-maker by pressuring ALJs to deny claims.
3. Whether any due process violation was negated if the Appeals Council’s reversal of benefits was supported by substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The court granted Barry’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Secretary’s cross-motion.
- The court held Barry had standing because his award was reversed through the challenged review mechanism, causing concrete injury.
- The court held the Bellmon Review Program, as implemented, impermissibly infringed Barry’s due process rights by creating a credible risk of adjudicative bias.
- The court rejected the argument that substantial evidence supporting the Appeals Council’s decision cured the structural due process defect.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires administrative adjudication by a neutral and unbiased decision-maker, and prohibits agency structures that create a substantial risk or appearance of bias in adjudication.
- Even where Congress authorizes agency “own-motion” review of ALJ decisions, selective targeting of high-allowance adjudicators for intensified review and corrective measures can violate claimants’ due process rights if it pressures adjudicators toward denials.
- A claimant may have standing to challenge an administrative adjudicatory program when the claimant is directly subjected to, and harmed by, the program’s allegedly biased procedures.
- Evidentiary sufficiency of an adverse agency outcome does not, by itself, remedy a constitutional defect arising from a structurally biased adjudicatory process.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Barry could challenge the agency’s targeted review regime and that the Bellmon Review Program, by singling out high-allowance ALJs for heightened scrutiny and corrective pressure, created an unconstitutional risk of bias that violated claimants’ Fifth Amendment right to a neutral adjudication.


Barry v. Heckler, 620 F. Supp. 779 (N.D. Cal. 1985)