AR 92-4(11): Bloodsworth v. Heckler , 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983) -- Judicial Review of an Appeals Council Dismissal of a Request for Review of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision.

AR 92-4(11) (Rescinded 10/26/99 by AR

99-4(11) )

EFFECTIVE/PUBLICATION DATE: 04/08/92

ACQUIESCENCE RULING 92-4(11)

ISSUE:

Whether an Appeals Council dismissal of a request for review of an ALJ

decision is a "final decision" which is judicially reviewable.

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

Sections 205(g) and (h) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42

U.S.C. sections 405(g) and (h) and 1383(c)(3)); 20 CFR 404.955, 404.967,

404.971, 404.972, 404.982, 416.1455, 416.1467, 416.1471, 416.1472,

416.1482 and 422.210.

CIRCUIT:

Eleventh (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)

Bloodsworth v. Heckler , 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

DESCRIPTION OF CASE:

In 1979, Mr. Jack Bloodsworth, the plaintiff in this case, filed

applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits,

and supplemental security income payments. The applications were denied

initially, on reconsideration, and by an ALJ after a hearing. The claimant

missed the 60 day time limit for appealing to the Appeals Council, and his

request for review of the ALJ decision, which was filed approximately two

weeks after the deadline, was dismissed by the Council on the basis of

untimeliness without good cause.

The claimant then filed a complaint in the Federal district court,

alleging that denial of the extension of time to file was not supported by

substantial evidence. The district court rejected the Secretary's argument

that it lacked jurisdiction, [1] reviewed the Appeals Council's denial of an extension of time, and

remanded the case for consideration of the merits of Mrs. Bloodsworth's

claim. On remand, the Appeals Council restated its position that the

plaintiff's request for review was untimely filed but considered the claim

on the merits as ordered, and denied the plaintiff's request for review.

The district court affirmed the decision of the Secretary and the

plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Secretary again argued that the

district court lacked jurisdiction.

's

claim. On remand, the Appeals Council restated its position that the

plaintiff's request for review was untimely filed but considered the claim

on the merits as ordered, and denied the plaintiff's request for review.

The district court affirmed the decision of the Secretary and the

plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Secretary again argued that the

district court lacked jurisdiction.

HOLDING:

STATEMENT AS TO HOW BLOODSWORTH DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

The Eleventh Circuit has held that an Appeals Council dismissal of a

request for review of an ALJ decision for reasons of untimeliness is a

"final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing" within the meaning

of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act and subject to judicial

review.

Contrary to the holding of the Bloodsworth court, SSA policy is

that the regulations make a clear distinction in regard to rights of

judicial review between dismissals and determinations on the merits by the

Appeals Council. [4] The Appeals

Council may take three types of action following an ALJ decision: it may

grant a request for review, it may deny a request for review, or it may

dismiss a request for review. The dismissal of a request for review of an

ALJ decision is binding and not subject to further review. 20 CFR 404.972,

416.1472. See also 20 CFR 404.955, 416.1455, 422.210 (Appeals

Council grant of request or denial of request for review of an ALJ

decision is judicially reviewable). The Appeals Council will dismiss a

request for review if it is untimely filed and the time for filing has not

been extended, [5] and the

Appeals Council may dismiss a request for review for other prescribed

reasons. 20 CFR 404.971, 416.1471.

SSA's position, based on the above-cited regulations, is that an Appeals

Council dismissal is not a "final decision of the Secretary made after a

hearing" and, therefore, is not judicially reviewable under section 205(g)

of the Act (42 U.S.C. 405(g)).

not

been extended, [5] and the

Appeals Council may dismiss a request for review for other prescribed

reasons. 20 CFR 404.971, 416.1471.

SSA's position, based on the above-cited regulations, is that an Appeals

Council dismissal is not a "final decision of the Secretary made after a

hearing" and, therefore, is not judicially reviewable under section 205(g)

of the Act (42 U.S.C. 405(g)).

Although the Bloodsworth holding is contrary to SSA's

interpretation of the Act and its regulations, the issue is a federal

jurisdiction matter and would not affect Agency policy at the ALJ or

Appeals Council levels. [6] Therefore, the Agency did not publish an Acquiescence Ruling because it

was initially thought unnecessary. This opinion has since changed because

of the recently issued acquiescence regulations.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to cases involving claimants who reside in

Alabama, Florida, or Georgia at the time of the Appeals Council dismissal

of the request for review.

Notices sent by the Appeals Council which dismiss requests for review of

ALJ decisions will advise claimants of their right to request judicial

review.

[1] The Secretary argued that

the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under sections

205(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 405(g) and

(h)) because the plaintiff failed to meet the "final decision" and "made

after a hearing" requirements of these sections. The Secretary contended

that (1) dismissal of a request for review on the basis of untimeliness

without "good cause" is not a "final decision" for it does not constitute

a determination on the merits and 2) it is not "made after a hearing"

because no hearing is granted solely and specifically on the request for

review itself.

" and "made

after a hearing" requirements of these sections. The Secretary contended

that (1) dismissal of a request for review on the basis of untimeliness

without "good cause" is not a "final decision" for it does not constitute

a determination on the merits and 2) it is not "made after a hearing"

because no hearing is granted solely and specifically on the request for

review itself.

[2] Section 205(g) of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 405(g)) provides in pertinent part any

individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing

to which he was a party . . ., may obtain a review of such decision by a

civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of

notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may

allow.

[3] 20 CFR 404.981 and 416.1481

state in pertinent part that ". . . the Appeals Council's decision, or the

decision of the administrative law judge if the request for review is

denied, is binding unless you or another party file an action in Federal

district court."

[4] As the Supreme Court noted,

the term "final decision" is not defined in the Social Security Act, but

the Act gives the Secretary authority to prescribe its meaning by

regulations. Weinberger v. Salfi , 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975).

[5] The Appeals Council upon

good cause shown, may extend the time for filing a request for review of

an ALJ decision.

[6] Since Bloodsworth was

decided, the Agency has not been filing motions to dismiss in cases within

the Eleventh Circuit involving Appeals Council dismissals of untimely

requests for review of ALJ decisions.