Martin v. Chater
Decision Date | 04 September 1996 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 94-0072-C. |
Citation | 938 F. Supp. 347 |
Parties | Walter F. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner, SSA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Charles Cooper Geraty, III, Geraty & MacQueen, Charlottesville, VA, for Plaintiff.
Robert P. Crouch, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for Defendant.
Before the court is the Commissioner's July 5, 1996 motion to alter or amend judgment that entered in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's response thereto. The Commissioner challenges the court's judgment essentially on the ground that recently enacted amendments to the Social Security Act, preclude an award of supplemental security income benefits based on alcoholism, even where it is only a contributing factor. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(I). The Secretary believes at the very least, alcohol was a contributing factor, thus the question becomes whether plaintiff's claim is encompassed by and barred under the statutory amendments.
Section 105(b)(5)(B) of Pub.L. 104-121 ( ).
The Commissioner urges that Congress intended claims to be divided into two categories: (a) those finally adjudicated after March 29, 1996, the enactment of the amendments; and (b) those finally adjudicated favorably before March 29, 1996.1 She suggests plaintiff's case falls into the category of being adjudicated after the date of enactment, and because the claim is based in whole or part on alcoholism, it is barred.
The real question posed by the Commissioner's motion to alter or amend judgment is the degree to which the March 29, 1996 changes apply to this case. Plaintiff argues that under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), the amendments should not be retroactively applied to cases on judicial review of a Commissioner's final decision that predated the date of enactment. He contends first that Congress expressly limited the reach of the amendments to final administrative decisions after March 29, 1996, and that a decision by this court after March 29, 1996 will not and, by any stretch of the imagination, could not constitute a final decision of the Commissioner. Accordingly, he believes that on this ground alone, he would be entitled to a closed period of disability from the alleged date of onset until December 31, 1996. The court agrees.
Essentially, there are four steps to an administrative determination of a claim for SSI benefits. The first is called the initial determination from which there may be a reconsideration. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(1) and (2). If a claimant is dissatisfied with the decision on reconsideration a hearing may be requested before an Administrative Law Judge (Law Judge). 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(3). The Appeals Council reviews the Law Judge's determination, and the decision of the Appeals Council becomes final and binding for all purposes, including the application of res judicata, absent an appeal to the federal courts. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1400(a)(4) and 416.1481. The right to appeal a final decision of the Commissioner to the federal district court is secured under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Callahan
...means just that: the final decision made at the administrative level with regard to a claim under the Act."); Martin v. Chater, 938 F.Supp. 347 (W.D.Va. 1996) ("It is the decision of the Appeals Council that constitutes the final adjudication before the Commissioner."); Santos v. Chater, 94......
-
Leitzke v. Callahan
...31, 1997); Santos v. Chater, 942 F.Supp. 57 (D.Mass. 1996); Willis v. Chater, 939 F.Supp. 1236, 1241-42 (W.D.Va.1996); Martin v. Chater, 938 F.Supp. 347, 349 (W.D.Va.1996); Teitelbaum v. Chater, 949 F.Supp. 1206, 1209-1214 (E.D.Pa.1996) (the amendments do not apply). Moreover, our Court of ......
-
Teitelbaum v. Chater
...judicial proceedings will not affect the plaintiff's right to benefits. See id.; Willis, 939 F.Supp. at 1239-42; cf. Martin v. Chater, 938 F.Supp. 347, 349 (W.D.Va.1996). There are, however, several serious problems with the adjudication interpretation which lead this court to conclude that......
-
Willis v. Chater
...Commissioner" means just that: the final decision made at the administrative level with regard to a claim under the Act. Martin v. Chater, 938 F.Supp. 347 (W.D.Va.1996). In the present case, the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's September 23, 1994, opinion on July 10, 1995. Consequ......
-
Issue Topics
...who have yet to receive a final administrative decision by the ALJ or Appeals Council at the time of enactment. Martin v. Chater , 938 F. Supp. 347, 349 (W.D. Va. 1996). Because the Appeals Council decision, dated September 23, 1994, constituted the final adjudication of the claim before th......
-
Issue topics
...who have yet to receive a final administrative decision by the ALJ or Appeals Council at the time of enactment. Martin v. Chater , 938 F. Supp. 347, 349 (W.D. Va. 1996). Because the Appeals Council decision, dated September 23, 1994, constituted the final adjudication of the claim before th......
-
Issue topics
...who have yet to receive a final administrative decision by the ALJ or Appeals Council at the time of enactment. Martin v. Chater , 938 F. Supp. 347, 349 (W.D. Va. 1996). Because the Appeals Council decision, dated September 23, 1994, constituted the final adjudication of the claim before th......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1241 (Table), No. 96-55089, 1997 WL 257490, at *2 (9th Cir. May 14, 1997), §§ 1208.5, 1601 Martin v. Chater , 938 F. Supp. 347, 349 (W.D. Va. 1996), §§ 301.1, 1301.1 Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec ., 170 Fed. Appx. 369, 374 (6th Cir. 2006), 6th-09 Martin v. Occupational S......