DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

994 chars 
10
            Our dissenting colleague suggests that Hagans
instructs “a relatively high level of deference is warranted,”
because the “same factors are at play here.” Dissenting Op. at
18–19. We disagree. The Hagans Court concluded that a high
level of deference was warranted in that instance because, inter
alia, it determined that: the Social Security Administration is
an agency with “exceptionally broad authority to manage a
complex,      nationwide      administrative   system,”     that
administering the Social Security Act is the SSA’s “central
purpose,” and that the “SSA has developed a massive body of
expertise [over] 56 years” which it has “consistently applied .
. . during the past 20 years.” Hagans, 694 F.3d at 305.
Importantly, the Hagans Court also found that “the SSA’s
interpretation of [the statute at issue was] sufficiently
persuasive to defer to it.” Id. While these factors in Hagan—
considered together—counseled for deference, such factors are
not present here.