Kasparek v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 29 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 21808.,21808. |
| Citation | 409 F.2d 214 |
| Parties | Lucille KASPAREK, Special Administrator of Maude C. Taylor, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Philip R. Lawrence (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Sheldon Deutsch (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before POPE, BROWNING, and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment for the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in a civil action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to review a decision of the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration holding that the estate of Maude C. Taylor was not entitled to widow's insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(e). We affirm.
The Appeals Council held that there was no basis for allowing the claim under the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions except by reopening a prior administrative determination rejecting Mrs. Taylor's claim, and that the prior determination could not be reopened.
Since the statutory provisions and administrative regulations applicable during the relevant time periods have been amended or superseded in material respects, no useful purpose would be served by a detailed analysis of their now obsolete texts. It is enough to say that we have examined them with care in light of the administrative record and are entirely satisfied that the district court properly sustained the Appeals Council's decision that, if reopening were barred, the claim of Mrs. Taylor's estate must be denied on the ground that she failed to satisfy the requirements of the statute and regulations relating to the filing of an application.
The district court held that our decision in Filice v. Celebrezze, 319 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1963), precluded judicial review of the Appeals Council's determination that the earlier administrative rejection of Mrs. Taylor's claim could not be reopened. As the district court noted, Filice dealt only with the review provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and in Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 (1966), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although agreeing with our interpretation of section 405(g), held that a limited review of orders denying reopening was authorized by section 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, 706 (1968). Since the applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act to judicial review of such orders was neither considered nor decided in Filice, that question is open in this circuit.
Assuming the Administrative Procedures Act does authorize review, we would sustain the decision of the Appeals Council denying reopening.
Appellant does not appear to challenge the lawfulness of the Administration's regulations governing the reopening and revision of its prior determinations. In any event, these regulations were a permissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Couch v. Schweiker, Civ. No. L 82-0013.
...to the Secretary to establish appropriate regulatory standards for entitlement to Title II benefits has been recognized. Kasparek v. Gardner, 409 F.2d 214 (9th Cir.1969). The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to establish her entitlement to disabled widow's benefits. Zanoviak v. Finc......
-
Lopez v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
...1969) (application of res judicata). See contra, Filice v. Celebrezze, 319 F.2d 443 (judicial review) (9th Cir.), but see, Kasparek v. Gardner, 409 F.2d 214 (9th Cir.), and Brockman v. Finch, 418 F.2d 116 (9th Cir.). The state of the doctrine of judicial review is expressed in Shelton v. Se......
-
Maddox v. Richardson, 72-1056.
...in Cappadora; and it is not altogether clear whether Filice states the settled law of the Ninth Circuit. Compare Kasparek v. Gardner, 409 F.2d 214, 215 (9th Cir. 1969) (rehearing denied), with Brockman v. Finch, 418 F.2d 116, 117-118 (9th Cir. 1969). Nevertheless, we adopt the reasoning of ......
-
Stuckey v. Weinberger
...received some attention from our court, we have never considered whether we should adopt the rule it suggests. In Kasparek v. Gardner, 409 F.2d 214 (9th Cir.1969), we noted that the question of review under the APA was "open in this circuit." Subsequently, in Brockman v. Finch, 418 F.2d 116......