Polaski v. Heckler
| Decision Date | 08 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5085,84-5085 |
| Citation | 804 F.2d 456 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,073 Lorraine POLASKI, et al., Appellees, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Howard S. Scher, Deborah R. Kant and William Kanter, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Jason Baron, Dept. of Health & Human Services, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
Mary Grau, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.
Before HEANEY, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
This matter comes before this Court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, --- U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974. We were directed to reconsider our decision in Polaski v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir.1985) in light of Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. ---, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986). Upon our request, the parties filed supplemental briefs.
The Secretary takes the position that our opinion must be amended to exclude from the class those people who filed claims with the Secretary within a stated time period but failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing the Secretary's denial of benefits. The appellees argue that no amendment is required.
After a careful review of Bowen, we agree that no amendment is required for the following reasons:
1. On petition for certiorari the Secretary stated that the exhaustion issue in this case was essentially identical to that presented to the Supreme Court in Bowen. The Supreme Court in Bowen held that exhaustion was not required.
2. Here, as in Bowen, we simply require that the claims of the questioned class members be reopened at the administrative level. We do not order that benefits be paid. Unless these class members are permitted to reopen their claims with the Secretary, they may suffer irreparable injury.
This Court's stay of July 10, 1985, is lifted and the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laird v. Stilwill
...1984) (supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir.1984), vacated, 476 U.S. 1167, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand, 804 F.2d 456 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927, 107 S.Ct. 3211, 96 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987)) and b. DDS did not make an express credibility determination and se......
-
Sebben, In re
...v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 965, 969 (8th Cir.1983)), vacated and remanded, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974 (1986), reinstated, 804 F.2d 456. In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 330, 96 S.Ct. 893, 900, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), the Court held that waiver of the exhaustion requirement i......
-
Alverio v. Chater
...1322, supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir.1984), vacated, 476 U.S. 1167, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand, 804 F.2d 456 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927, 107 S.Ct. 3211, 96 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987)). Under The adjudicator must give full consideration to all of the ev......
-
Orr v. Chater, C 96-3022-MWB.
...(supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir.1984), vacated, 476 U.S. 1167, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand, 804 F.2d 456 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 927, 107 S.Ct. 3211, L.Ed.2d 698 (1987)). In Polaski, the Eighth Circuit held: The adjudicator may not disregard a cl......
-
Federal court issues
...Cir. 1984) (supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8 th Cir. 1984), vacated , 476 U.S. 1167, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand , 804 F.2d 456 (8 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 482 U.S. 927, 107 S.Ct. 3211, 96 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987)). The court denied summary judgment on the remaining iss......
-
Table of Cases
...(8th Cir. 1984) (supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1984), vacated, 476 U.S. 1167, 106S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand , 804 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1986), 7th-12, 8th-13, 8th-09, 8th-08, 8th-06, 8th-05, §§ 204.1, 205.1, 205.2, 205.5, 205.6, 205.10, 205.12, 608.1, 1205 Pollard ......
-
Table of cases
...Cir. 1984) (supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1984), vacated, 476 U.S. 1167, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand , 804 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1986), 7th-12, 8th-13, 8th-09, 8th-08, 8th-06, 8th-05, §§ 204.1, 205.1, 205.2, 205.5, 205.6, 205.10, 205.12, 608.1, 1205 Pollard v. H......