holding in a facial challenge to jurisdiction, the court presumes all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction to be true and will grant the motion only if the plaintiff fails to allege an element necessary for subject matter jurisdiction
How later courts described this case
- holding in a facial challenge to jurisdiction, the court presumes all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction to be true and will grant the motion only if the plaintiff fails to allege an element necessary for subject matter jurisdiction
- holding that to make a factual attack on the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, the court may receive competent evidence in order to determine the factual dispute
- holding that complaint sufficiently alleged facts to warrant waiver of administrative remedies under section 405(g) and therefore subject matter jurisdiction existed
- holding that to be found disabled under the social security statute, “it is the disability which must be continuous for 12 months, not the impairment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
To justify waiver of administrative exhaustion under Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 , 106 S.Ct. 2022 , 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986), “claimants [must] show (1) their claims are collateral to their claim of benefits; (2) that irreparable injury will follow; and (3) that exhaustion would otherwise be futile.” Schoolcraft v. Sullivan, 971 F.2d 81, 85 (8th Cir.1992). Although I doubt whether plaintiffs can meet this burden with respect to their claims that have survived Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, that question should be decided in the first instance by the district court. Because it is unclear to me whether the district court’s exhaustion ruling was based entirely upon the secret policy issue that we subsequently decided the other way *596 in Schoolcraft , I conclude that the Rule 12(b)(1) portion of the court’s dismissal order must be remanded for further consideration in light of Schoolcraft . I believe that is what the court has done in the Subject Matter Jurisdiction portion of its opinion. Therefore, I concur.