Julene Christie v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Michael J. Astrue On Appeal from the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________
No. 06-4913
_________
JULENE CHRISTIE,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Michael J. Astrue*
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-02265)
District Judge: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
Argued on January 17, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 28, 2008 )
*Jo Anne B. Barnhart’s term as Commissioner expired on January 19, 2007.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Thomas D. Sutton, Esquire (ARGUED)
James Valentin, Esquire
Leventhal, Sutton & Gornstein
3600 Horizon Boulevard, Suite 150
Trevose, PA 19053
Counsel for Appellant
Barbara L. Spivak, Esquire, Of Counsel
Chief Counsel - Region II
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Arthur Swerdloff, Esquire (ARGUED)
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Peter G. O’Malley, Esquire
Christopher J. Christie, Esquire
United States Attorney
Office of United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Room 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Appellee
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Julene Christie filed for disability benefits in 1995. The application was denied by an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 1998 for reasons that were later found to be erroneous.
A relevant regulation was modified by the Commissioner in 1999. After a delay, not caused

-- 2 of 3 --

3
by Christie, her claim was heard again by an ALJ in 2002 and denied under the modified
regulation. Her appeal to the Appeals Council was denied. Christie then appealed to the
District Court. The District Court vacated the decision of the Commissioner and remanded
the case for further proceedings. Because under the unusual circumstances of this case, we
conclude that the regulation in effect when the claim was first adjudicated should control the
decision here, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and remand this case for a
new hearing by an ALJ under the regulations as they existed at the time of Christie’s original
1998 adjudication.

-- 3 of 3 --