Courll v. Weinberger
| Decision Date | 15 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. S-2674. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | Frederick COURLL, Plaintiff, v. Caspar W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant. |
Meyerhoff, Denvir, Gunterman & Tom, Brian Tom, California Rural Legal Assistance, Marysville, Cal., for plaintiff.
Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., William B. Shubb, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for defendant.
On September 12, 1959, plaintiff Frederick Courll was involved in an automobile accident which resulted in alleged brain damage as well as other physical injuries. Plaintiff first filed for social security disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423, on August 31, 1960. As will be hereafter enumerated, this was the first of nine separate claims for disability insurance benefits which plaintiff was to file between August 31, 1960, and February 17, 1972. The case was brought to this court on January 2, 1973, seeking judicial review pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which establishes judicial review by the district courts of final decisions by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this case on October 19, 1973, alleging that jurisdiction of this court was invoked on six separate bases: (1) Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (); (2) Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (); (3) Title 28 U. S.C. § 1361 (); (4) Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 (); (5) Title 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (); (6) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff asks this court to grant his claim for social security disability insurance benefits, or in the alternative, to remand the case to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for a hearing and determination on the merits. On these alternative prayers, plaintiff has moved this court for summary judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 56. The Secretary, on the other hand, has moved this court to dismiss plaintiff's claim on the basis that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that this court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. The case is here now on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the Secretary's motion to dismiss.
The legal questions presented by this case are not the typical questions facing a court in social security review. Normally, plaintiffs in social security disability insurance cases which reach this court have been denied disability insurance benefits as the result of a hearing by an administrative law judge and determination by the Appeals Council. In such cases the sole question which this court must face is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the Secretary. Chavies v. Finch, 443 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1971); Rhinehardt v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1971). In the instant case, plaintiff has never had an adjudication of his disability claim on the merits. Plaintiff's claim has been denied by the Secretary on the basis of "administrative res judicata".
Two major questions are presented by this case: (1) Does a district court have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare which denied an application for social security disability insurance benefits on the basis of administrative res judicata? (2) Can the doctrine of administrative res judicata be applied to bar pursuit of a social security disability insurance benefit claim where the claimant has not been afforded a hearing on the merits of his case?
To fully understand the posture of this case and the Secretary's application of the doctrine of administrative res judicata, it is necessary to review the administrative history of the case:
(1) On August 31, 1960, the plaintiff first filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. On September 22, 1960, prior to receiving a determination on the August 31, 1960, application, he filed an additional and duplicative application. On November 29, 1960, plaintiff was notified that his claim had been denied and he was advised that he could request reconsideration of this determination. He took no further action.
(2) On April 11, 1962, plaintiff filed another application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. By letter dated August 21, 1962, plaintiff was notified that his claim had been denied. He was advised that he could request reconsideration of this determination. Plaintiff took no further action.
(3) On March 10, 1964, plaintiff filed another application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. This claim was initially denied and upon reconsideration was also denied on June 2, 1964, and December 9, 1964, respectively. Plaintiff was advised that he could request a hearing, but he took no further action.
(4) On April 19, 1966, plaintiff filed a new application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. By letter dated July 6, 1966, plaintiff was notified that his claim had been denied. He was advised that his claim was considered under the amended law and that both previous and new evidence was considered.1 He was also advised that he could request reconsideration of the determination, but he took no further action.
(5) On January 23, 1968, plaintiff filed another application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. By letter dated May 2, 1968, the plaintiff was notified that his claim had been denied and that he could request reconsideration of this determination. Plaintiff took no further action.
(6) On June 13, 1968, plaintiff again filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. By letter dated August 5, 1968, the plaintiff was notified that the facts and issues were the same as those previously considered in connection with his January 23, 1968, application. On this basis the claim was denied. He was advised that he could request reconsideration of this determination, but he took no action.
(7) On June 29, 1970, plaintiff filed another application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. This claim was denied initially on August 11, 1970, and was denied on reconsideration on September 25, 1970. On March 9, 1971, William J. Risteau, an administrative law judge, found that the plaintiff had not submitted any new evidence that he was disabled. The administrative law judge found that the facts and issues were the same as those previously determined and he issued an order dismissing the request for a hearing on the grounds of res judicata.
(8) On March 11, 1971, the plaintiff filed a request for review of the dismissal. On March 30, 1971, the plaintiff was notified that the administrative law judge's dismissal had been considered and affirmed by the Appeals Council.
(9) On February 17, 1972, the plaintiff filed his current application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. This claim was denied initially on April 5, 1972, and was denied on reconsideration on June 2, 1972. The plaintiff then requested a hearing. On August 1, 1972, William J. Sweeney, an administrative law judge, found that the evidence the plaintiff had submitted was not new evidence. The administrative law judge thus found that the facts and issues were the same as those previously determined and the administrative law judge issued an order dismissing the request for a hearing on the grounds of res judicata.
(10) On September 15, 1972, the plaintiff filed a request for review of the dismissal. On November 2, 1972, the plaintiff was notified that the administrative law judge's dismissal had been considered and affirmed by the Appeals Council. As noted, plaintiff filed this action in this court on January 2, 1973.
As part of the motion to dismiss, the Secretary has challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to review the claim here under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff has responded by amending his complaint so as to allege five separate grounds of jurisdiction in addition to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), including 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1361; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706; and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides in pertinent part as follows:
The Secretary, in his motion to dismiss, has strenuously argued that because plaintiff's claim was dismissed by the Secretary on the grounds of administrative res judicata there has been no "final decision" by the Secretary and thus this court has no jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This argument lacks merit, however, since the effect of the denial of a claim is the same whether grounded on the doctrine of administrative res judicata or whether the result of a hearing on the merits. Furthermore, to accept the Secretary's argument would in effect oust the district courts of their traditional review function under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) each and every time the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Matheson v. Kinnear
-
Thompson v. Schweiker
...does not acquire the rigid finality of judicial proceedings. Grose v. Cohen, 406 F.2d 823, 825 (4th Cir. 1969); Courll v. Weinberger, 393 F.Supp. 1033 (E.D.Cal.1975). Where the record is patently inadequate to support the findings the ALJ made, application of res judicata is tantamount to a......