Penner v. Schweiker
| Citation | 701 F.2d 256 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-5337,82-5337 |
| Parties | Herman PENNER, Appellant, v. Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Barry M. Simpson (argued), Brennan, Robins & Daley, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
David Hyman (argued), Asst. Regional Atty., Diane C. Moskal, Regional Atty., Region III, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Philadelphia, Pa., J. Alan Johnson, U.S. Atty., Anthony M. Mariani, Asst. U.S. Atty., W.D. Pa., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before HUNTER, GARTH, Circuit Judges, and STERN, * District Judge.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services dismissed Herman Penner's request for a hearing to review the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Mr. Penner filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking judicial review of that decision. The district court held that, under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) (1976 & Supp. IV 1980), 1 it lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision and dismissed the complaint. Mr. Penner appealed to this court.
We find that Mr. Penner raised before the district court a colorable constitutional claim that the Secretary violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with adequate notice of his right to request a hearing. We hold that, by so doing, Mr. Penner properly presented a constitutional challenge to the Secretary's decision within the meaning of Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), and thus the district court did have jurisdiction to review the Secretary's refusal to grant Mr. Penner a hearing. Accordingly we reverse the district court's order dismissing Mr. Penner's complaint.
On March 7, 1979, Herman Penner filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"). 42 U.S.C. Secs. 401-433 (1976 & Supp. IV 1980). At the time of his application, Mr. Penner was 58 years old and lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He was married and was the father of two adult married children.
In the late 1930's Mr. Penner attended the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. After receiving his undergraduate degree in 1941, he entered the university's law school where he was described as a "brilliant" student. During his second year in law school, however, he was drafted into the Army and was required to drop out of school. Less than ninety days after entering the service, he suffered a severe emotional breakdown which resulted in his immediate discharge. Because his emotional condition continued to deteriorate after his discharge, Mr. Penner underwent a prefrontal lobotomy in April of 1946.
Following his operation Mr. Penner had to "grow up" again. Initially he had to be fed and diapered by his family, but slowly he learned to take care of his own personal needs. Beginning in 1957 he was employed by his father in the family meat packing business. His performance on the job was erratic and unreliable, and his attendance at work was not mandatory. His ability to relate to other people and to changing situations was limited because of substantial changes in mood and personality. His brief attempts at other employment were repeatedly unsuccessful due to his unstable emotional state. In 1974 Mr. Penner's father died, and the family business folded. Since that time his family has occasionally given him odd jobs, apparently to prevent him from feeling totally useless. App. at A52, A57, A71-72.
Mr. Penner has been diagnosed as having a schizophrenic reaction with depressive features. Physically he is healthy and is able to walk, swim, and perform small chores at his synagogue. He is able to take care of his basic personal hygiene and the cleaning of his apartment. Mr. Penner's I.Q. is high and his speech is clear, yet he displays significant gaps in memory and insight. He often forgets dates, places, and sequences of events. He does not handle his own financial affairs. He often becomes confused when telling a story and is not able to logically follow through with thoughts. His swings in mood are severe and have resulted in his inability to function in an unfamiliar work environment at a consistent level. Because of his inner anger and confusion resulting from his mental limitations, Mr. Penner has been described as a "bad risk" with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation. See app. at A55.
After considering Mr. Penner's medical and occupational history, the SSA denied his application for disability benefits on May 23, 1979. At the prompting of his family, Mr. Penner contacted an attorney about his denial on August 17, 1979. The attorney immediately sent a letter to the Social Security Administration ("SSA") advising it that he represented Mr. Penner and requesting review of the denial notice by an Administrative Law Judge. Five days later he sent another letter asking that the SSA "re-examine" the file to make a further determination in the case. On the same day Mr. Penner filed a formal request for reconsideration. The form was marked by the SSA office to indicate that Mr. Penner may need assistance in supplying information and listed his attorney's address and telephone number. App. at A39, A44. 2
On December 13, 1979, the original determination denying disability benefits was affirmed. A notice was sent to Mr. Penner on January 2, 1980. The SSA failed, however, in violation of its own regulations, 3 to send any notice to his attorney that Mr. Penner's request for reconsideration had been turned down. The SSA's failure was despite the fact that Mr. Penner's attorney had notified the SSA of his representation of Mr. Penner and despite the fact that the SSA interviewer had indicated on Mr. Penner's Request for Reconsideration form that Mr. Penner required assistance.
Because he had received no information on the reconsideration request, in late July of 1980 Mr. Penner's attorney asked an associate to check the SSA records. The associate reviewed the records and discovered a copy of the January 2, 1980 denial notice sent to Mr. Penner. Mr. Penner's attorney immediately filed a request for a hearing. 4 The SSA received the request on July 30, 1980, almost five months after the date for filing such a request had passed. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.918 (1980). 5
On February 27, 1981, the SSA dismissed Mr. Penner's request for a hearing because he failed to file within 60 days after receiving notice of the denial of reconsideration. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(b) (1976). The order stated that good cause to extend the time of filing had not been shown. App. at A28. Mr. Penner through his counsel filed a timely Request for Review with the Appeals Council on March 10, 1981. That request was denied on April 30, 1981.
On May 18, 1981, Mr. Penner through his counsel filed the instant action in the district court. On October 9, 1981, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) (1976 & Supp. IV 1980). The case was assigned to a magistrate who, after the filing of supplemental briefs, recommended that the Secretary's motion to dismiss be granted. The magistrate reasoned that dismissal was proper because Mr. Penner had been denied a hearing for failure to file a timely request and because Mr. Penner "does not raise a constitutional question" under Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). App. at A18. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the action in an order dated May 13, 1982. This appeal followed.
In Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), the Supreme Court construed section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) (1976 & Supp. IV 1980) to limit "judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a 'final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.' " 430 U.S. at 108, 97 S.Ct. at 985. In Sanders the petitioner sought review of the Secretary's decision not to reopen a previously denied application for disability payments. Because a petition to reopen a prior final decision could be denied without a hearing, the Court held that the language of section 205(g) precluded judicial review of the Secretary's decision. Id. We have applied Sanders to preclude our review of the Secretary's dismissal of "new" claims that, because they were barred by res judicata, could be denied without a hearing. Stauffer v. Califano, 693 F.2d 306, 307 (3d Cir.1982); see, e.g., McGowen v. Harris, 666 F.2d 60 (4th Cir.1981); Davis v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 934 (9th Cir.1982). Similarly, in the instant action the Secretary was not required to grant a hearing because Mr. Penner's request for a hearing was untimely filed. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(b) (1976 & Supp. IV 1980). Accordingly, we are precluded by the language of section 205(g) from relying on that provision for jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision. Watters v. Harris, 656 F.2d 234, 238-39 (7th Cir.1980).
The Court in Sanders recognized, however, that section 205(g) did not act as a bar to resolution of constitutional questions raised by the claimant when seeking review of the Secretary's decision. 430 U.S. at 109, 97 S.Ct. at 986. "Constitutional questions obviously are unsuited to resolution in administrative hearing procedures and, therefore, access to the courts is essential to the decision of such questions." Id. Thus the Court held that judicial review was proper where the Secretary's decision to deny or discontinue social security benefits is challenged on constitutional grounds notwithstanding the absence of a prior administrative hearing.
In the instant case the district court held that Mr. Penner did not raise a constitutional issue before the district court and thus that his complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Sebelius
...file an appeal within 60 days of the denial, the Third Circuit held that a constitutional question had been raised. Penner v. Schweiker, 701 F.2d 256, 258-60 (3d Cir. 1983). The court held that the claimant had raised "a colorable constitutional claim that the Secretary violated his due pro......
-
Courtney v. Choplin
...96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 764-67, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); Penner v. Schweiker, 701 F.2d 256 (3d Cir.1983) (concluding that district court had jurisdiction to review the Secretary's refusal to grant a hearing where claimant raised a ......
-
Robbins v. Colvin, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13829-MBB
...and Human Services , 744 F.2d at 5142 F.Supp.3d 213(citing Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. at 109, 97 S.Ct. 980, and Penner v. Schweiker , 701 F.2d 256 (3rd Cir.1983) ; Matos v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare , 581 F.2d at 286 n.6 ; see also Rothman v. Secretary of Health and Hum......
-
Brandyburg v. Sullivan, 91-8078
...fortiori, that the ALJ's pre-hearing dismissal for untimeliness (see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1457(c)(3)) is unreviewable. See Penner v. Schweiker, 701 F.2d 256, 260 (3d Cir.1983); White v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 91, 93 (10th Cir.1984). Denials of review by the Appeals Council of these decisions do not......
-
Table of cases
...(2d Cir. Feb. 26, 1998), §§ 203.3, 204.6, 301.3 Pendley v. Heckler , 767 F.2d 1561, 1563 (11th Cir. 1985), § 1210.5 Penner v. Schweiker , 701 F.2d 256, 260-61 (3d Cir. 1983), § 503.9 Penn v. Sullivan , 896 F.2d 313 (8th Cir. 1990), § 1210.5 Penrod v. Apfel , 54 F. Supp.2d 961 (D. Ariz. Jan.......
-
Table of Cases
...(2d Cir. Feb. 26, 1998),§§ 203.3, 204.6, 301.3 Pendley v. Heckler , 767 F.2d 1561, 1563 (11th Cir. 1985), § 1210.5 Penner v. Schweiker , 701 F.2d 256, 260-61 (3d Cir. 1983), § 503.9 Penn v. Sullivan , 896 F.2d 313 (8th Cir. 1990), § 1210.5 Penrod v. Apfel , 54 F. Supp.2d 961 (D. Ariz. Jan. ......
-
Administrative review issues
...defective when received by a claimant too mentally ill to comprehend the notice. Id. at 39-40, citing Penner v. Schweiker , 701 F.2d 256, 260-61 (3d Cir. 1983); Young v. Bowen , 858 F.2d 951, 955 (4 th Cir. 1988); Parker v. Califano , 644 F.2d 1199, 1203 (6 th Cir. 1981); Evans v. Chater , ......