Doe v. Heckler, Civ. A. No. M-83-2218.

• Decision Date: 15 February 1984
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. M-83-2218.
• Citation: 580 F. Supp. 1224
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
• Parties: John DOE, Robert Seawright, Donald E. Dill, Charles W. Boyd, Dorothy J. Messenger, Gloria Washington, and Yvonne Dunlap, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services.

580 F. Supp. 1224

John DOE, Robert Seawright, Donald E. Dill, Charles W. Boyd, Dorothy J. Messenger, Gloria Washington, and Yvonne Dunlap, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Civ. A. No. M-83-2218.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

February 15, 1984.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Dennis W. Carroll and Ethel Zelenske, Administrative Law Center, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs.

J. Frederick Motz, U.S. Atty. for the Dist. Md., Glenda G. Gordon, Asst. U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., Diane C. Moskal, Regional Atty., Michael P. Meehan and Thomas A. Dougherty, Jr., Asst. Regional Attys., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Philadelphia, Pa., Randolph W. Gaines, A. George Lowe, and Gabriel L. Imperator, Office of General Counsel, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES R. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.

On December 13, 1983 this court granted class certification to all persons in Maryland:

"(a) Who have applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act;

"(b) Who have been found by the Secretary to be under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 416(i) and determined to be eligible for monthly disability benefits under the Act;

"(c) Who, after being notified that the Secretary was reviewing their continued disability and/or proposed to terminate their benefits, either

1) filed form SSA-454aF4 asserting that they were still disabled, or

2) filed a request for reconsideration following the formal decision to terminate their benefits.

"(d) Whose disability has been determined by the Secretary to have ceased in a decision issued on or after the 60th day prior to the filing of this action;

"(e) Whose disability has been determined to have ceased based on medical factors;

"(f) Who have had or will have their monthly benefit checks stopped; and

"(g) Who have had their disability benefits terminated without any finding that either (i) there has been a change in their medical condition since the time that the Secretary first determined that they were under a disability as defined in the Act or (ii) that the original favorable decision was erroneous."

Further, this court enjoined the Secretary of Health and Human Services from terminating the social security disability benefits of all class members absent a finding of medical improvement when the evidence at the cessation hearing relates solely to the claimant's physical or mental condition. Doe v. Heckler, 576 F.Supp. 463, 473 (D.Md.1983).

The plaintiffs have moved to amend or alter that judgment with respect to the relief granted the class members. (Paper No. 45). They request the court to add the following orders:

1. Defendant and her agents are hereby ordered to review on a priority basis the claims of those class members whose claims for benefits were denied on or after April 28, 1983 on the basis of medical factors and to apply the standards set forth in the court's Memorandum and Order to their claims.

2. Defendant and her agents shall notify all such class members that their claim for benefits is being reviewed, that the initial denial may have been in error, that the Social Security Administration may be asking for additional evidence relating to the impairment, that if the Social Security Administration determines that the initial denial was in error the claimant will be entitled to back benefits from the date of the application and that if the decision is still unfavorable they have the right to appeal to the next appropriate administrative or judicial level.

3. Defendant shall promptly provide plaintiffs' counsel with copies of all policy statements or directives issued by defendant or her representatives for the purpose of implementing the terms of this injunction and shall report to the plaintiffs' counsel the progress of the reevaluations of class members claims.

The defendant has opposed the plaintiffs' motion (Paper No. 47), and the plaintiffs have replied to that opposition (Paper No. 48). No hearing is necessary to decide the motions. (Local Rule 6E).

Legal Analysis

Consideration of the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment, timely filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), is in the sound discretion of the trial court. See Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, 685 F.2d 729, 743 (1st Cir.1982); Slater v. KFC Corp., 621 F.2d 932, 939 (8th Cir.1980). A review of each of the three proposed amendments to the judgments and the arguments set forth by the parties convinces this court that amendment is proper.

1) Priority Review

The plaintiffs urge this court to direct the Secretary to conduct a priority review of the claims of those class members who were denied benefits on or after April 28, 1983 on the basis of medical factors. Further, the plaintiffs urge the court to order the Secretary to apply the medical improvement standard to their claims.

The plaintiffs argue that failure to amend the judgment to include direction for such priority review will deprive "those class members who had already fully exhausted their claims or who did not pursue further administrative appeals during the pendency of Doe v. Heckler" of the benefits of the Doe v. Heckler decision. (Paper No. 45, Memorandum at 2).

The plaintiffs' interpretation of the Doe v. Heckler decision is an unnecessarily narrow one. In Doe, four of the five named plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies. This court did not exclude them from the relief awarded, but remanded their cases to the Secretary for reconsideration. Doe v. Heckler, 576 F.Supp. 463, 472. Neither did this court exclude from relief those persons who had not timely appealed a previous decision to terminate benefits. In analyzing the jurisdictional requirements which each Doe class member is required to meet, this court stated:

"Each member of a purported plaintiff class, in a suit under the Social Security Act, must meet the jurisdictional requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of having received a final decision from the Secretary. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-64 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2465-66, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975). The Supreme Court has defined the two elements of finality. First, each member must have presented a claim for benefits to the Secretary. Second, each class member normally must have exhausted his administrative remedies. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 96 S.Ct. 893, 899, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).

In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Paper No. 22), this court, on September 9, 1983, determined that each member of the proposed class had presented a claim for continued benefits to the Secretary and that the exhaustion requirement was waivable and had been waived in this particular case."

Id. at 466-467. Therefore, failure to exhaust administrative remedies per se does not prohibit membership in the class. Each class member, though, must have presented a claim to the Secretary. To assure that that jurisdictional prerequisite was met by those members of the class who had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, this court amended the class to "include a requirement that class members, after being notified that the Secretary was reviewing their continued disability and/or proposed to terminate their benefits, either:

(a) filed the questionnaire, SSA-454aF4, asserting that they were still disabled, or

(b) filed a request for reconsideration following the formal decision to terminate their benefits."

Id. at 465. Therefore, if those persons who have not exhausted their administrative remedies either filed the questionnaire or a request for reconsideration on or after April 28, 1983, they cannot be denied membership in the class.

Having clarified class membership status, this court now turns to the defendant's arguments against ordering priority review. The defendant asserts that an order requiring priority review would "propel this court into an area properly left within the discretion of the administrative agency, i.e., the setting of an agency's priorities." (Paper No. 47 at 2).

Although the Supreme Court has made it clear that a court, in formulating equitable relief, should not usurp traditional administrative functions, see, e.g., Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 788, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 1470, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1980), reh. den., 451 U.S. 1032, 101 S.Ct. 3023, 69 L.Ed.2d 401 (1981); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 524, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1202, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978), it is equally clear that "once jurisdiction is established courts maintain the authority to provide equitable relief commensurate to the harm." Mental Health Association v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 965, 972 (8th Cir.1983).

For example, in Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979), the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's classwide imposition of hearing and notice procedures designed to effectuate provisions of the Social Security Act. Id. at 704, 99 S.Ct. at 2559.

Lower courts have fashioned relief requiring the Secretary to conform to court imposed deadlines for processing social security cases, see, e.g., Day v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1982), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1873, 76 L.Ed.2d 806 (1983); Crosby v. Social Security Administration, 550 F.Supp. 1278, 1282 (D.Mass.1982). In several cases similar to the one before this court, the Secretary has been ordered to conduct priority reviews. See, e.g., Mental Health Association v. Heckler, 720 F.2d at 974; Morrison v. Heckler, 582 F.Supp. 321 at 322 (W.D. Wash.1983).

The purpose of priority review is to assure that those persons whose benefits may have been illegally terminated are identified and procedures for review implemented to process their cases expeditiously. It appears to this court that an order requiring such review furthers the...