Easley v. Finch, 13852.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 13852.,13852. |
| Citation | 431 F.2d 1351 |
| Parties | John EASLEY, Appellee, v. Robert H. FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Kathryn H. Baldwin, Atty., Dept. of Justice (William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman G. Knopf, Atty., Dept. of Justice, and Wade H. Ballard, III, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellant.
Samuel W. Price, Oak Hill, W. Va., for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
The Secretary appeals from the District Court's decision holding the doctrine of administrative res judicata inapplicable to the plaintiff's application for review of his claim of disability and ordering the payment of disability benefits. We reverse.
Easley has filed four separate applications for Social Security disability benefits. The first, filed in October 1960, claimed disability as of December 1959 due to asthma. His last employment was listed as having terminated on January 1, 1960. No review was sought after the application was denied initially.1
A second application was filed in December 1962, again alleging disability due to asthma as well as a "weak right arm."2 Again Easley was notified by letter than he had been found not to be disabled. After the denial he sought a reconsideration. His claim was again denied. Following Easley's timely request, a hearing was held on September 24, 1963. The evidence consisted of Easley's testimony and reports of seven physicians who had examined him between 1955 and 1963. The Hearing Examiner concluded that Easley was not disabled as of June 30, 1962, the last date on which he met the statutory earnings requirement for disability coverage. Easley did not request review of the Examiner's decision.
A third application, filed on February 24, 1964, was denied initially and on reconsideration. A request for a hearing was denied on the ground that the issues had already been determined and no new evidence bearing on that determination was offered. The Appeals Council declined to disturb the Examiner's decision.
Easley's fourth application was filed in December 1965. It was denied initially and on reconsideration. A hearing was granted at which Easley, now represented by an attorney, testified. His wife and a friend also testified. The record was supplemented with the evidence presented at the 1963 hearing and with two additional reports of medical examinations in 1964 and 1965. The Hearing Examiner denied an award of benefits, finding that the question of Easley's disability as of June 30, 1962 had been determined at the first hearing and was final and binding, unless the evidence at the second hearing provided "good cause" for reopening the inquiry. The Examiner specifically found that nothing in the evidence warranted reopening. The Appeals Council affirmed the denial of benefits on June 28, 1967.
On August 9, 1967 Easley filed a complaint in the District Court seeking review of the Secretary's decision. The Secretary moved for summary judgment on the ground that the case was unreviewable because of the application of the doctrine of administrative res judicata. The District Court held that res judicata was inapplicable because Easley had not had an attorney at his first hearing and because he had never before had judicial review of his claims. The Court then found that Easley was disabled and ordered payment of benefits.
In enacting the Social Security Act, Congress deliberately imposed severe restrictions on the power of the federal courts to review administrative decisions made in the implementation of the Act. No finding of fact may be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence. No judicial review of an administrative decision can be obtained unless an action is filed within sixty days after the claimant is given notice of an adverse final decision by the Secretary.3 A final decision, which is not reviewed promptly, is binding on the claimant.4
Taken together, these statutory restrictions on the power of federal courts to review Social Security matters necessarily imply the existence of an administrative form of the res judicata doctrine. If a claimant has no right to judicial review of a decision denying him benefits unless he brings an action within sixty days of the denial, he has no right to regain it, or indefinitely extend it, by a perfunctory reassertion of his claim after expiration of the time to seek judicial review. The regulations which codify the application of res judicata to the administrative proceedings5 do no more than implement the purpose of the Act to insulate the Secretary's decisions on individual claims from judicial review except within the framework of the Act. This has been recognized by the federal courts for many years.6
In Grose v. Cohen, 4 Cir., 406 F.2d 823, we recognized that the doctrine is not to be so inflexibly applied to work manifest injustice. In keeping with that principle, we held the doctrine inapplicable to a case where the Secretary's decision was founded on error manifest on the face of the record.7 In so holding, we did no more than apply an exception so well recognized that it is codified in the Social Security regulations.8
The only justification advanced by the District Court for allowing judicial review in this case, apart from the circular statement that there had been none previously, is that Easley was not represented by counsel at the hearing on his second application for benefits. We think this an insufficient basis for disregarding the principle of repose.
A hearing on an application for benefits is not an adversary proceeding. The applicant is confronted with no adversary in the usual sense of that term. The Social Security Administration provides an applicant with assistance to prove his claim. Here, the Administration provided a comprehensive medical examination. There is no reason to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Califano
...1976); Miranda v. Sec'y of HEW, 514 F.2d 996, 998 (1 Cir. 1975); Hess v. Sec'y of HEW, 497 F.2d 837, 840 (3 Cir. 1974); Easley v. Finch, 431 F.2d 1351, 1353 (4 Cir. 1970). HEW regulations specifically require the hearing examiner to "inquire fully into the matters at issue and to receive in......
-
Stephen M. v. Comm'r, Civil Case No. PWG-17-3515
...judicata to avoid claimants "indefinitely extend[ing]" the adjudication of their claims after a denial of benefits. Easley v. Finch, 431 F.2d 1351, 1353 (4th Cir. 1970). An ALJ can apply res judicata to dismiss a hearing request if the SSA "made a previous determination or decision . . . ab......
-
Jones v. Kijakazi
...which might be available, “since that would in effect shift the burden of proof to the government.” Id. at 840 (citing Easley v. Finch, 431 F.2d 1351, 1353 (4th Cir.1970)). The regulations in this field thus require the ALJ to inquire fully into the matters at issue and admit testimony of w......
-
Courll v. Weinberger
...denial of benefits without a hearing would be a manifest injustice. Woodrum v. Richardson, 321 F.Supp. 1278 (W.Va.1971); Easley v. Finch, 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970); Grose v. Cohen, 406 F.2d 823 (4th Cir. The first exception is a judicial recognition of the situation where a claimant for......
-
Appendices
...68-12a 205(a), 216(i) and 223—Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Disability— Res Judicata · SSR 71-32c Easley v. Finch , 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970)—Sections 205(g) and 221(d)—Judicial Review— Res Judicata · SSR 86-16a Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Pater......
-
Appendices
...68-12a 205(a), 216(i) and 223—Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Disability— Res Judicata · SSR 71-32c Easley v. Finch , 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970)—Sections 205(g) and 221(d)—Judicial Review— Res Judicata · SSR 86-16a Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Pater......
-
Appendices
...68-12a 205(a), 216(i) and 223—Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Disability— Res Judicata · SSR 71-32c Easley v. Finch , 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970)—Sections 205(g) and 221(d)—Judicial Review— Res Judicata · SSR 86-16a Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Pater......
-
Appendix 1: guide to important social security rulings and acquiescence rulings
...68-12a 205(a), 216(i) and 223—Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Disability— Res Judicata • SSR 71-32c Easley v. Finch , 431 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970)—Sections 205(g) and 221(d)—Judicial Review— Res Judicata • SSR 86-16a Finality of Decision—New and Material Evidence of Pater......