Salinas v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., No. 19-199

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
• Citation: 208 L.Ed.2d 608,141 S.Ct. 691
• Parties: Manfredo M. SALINAS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
• Docket Number: No. 19-199
• Decision Date: 03 February 2021

141 S.Ct. 691
208 L.Ed.2d 608

Manfredo M. SALINAS, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

No. 19-199

Supreme Court of the United States.

Argued November 2, 2020
Decided February 3, 2021

Sarah M. Harris, Washington, DC, for the petitioner.

Austin Raynor, Washington, DC, for the respondent.

Lisa S. Blatt, Sarah M. Harris, Charles L. McCloud, Robert M. Belden, Thomas S. Chapman, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Austin L. Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Charles W. Scarborough, Sonia M. Carson, Attorneys Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ana M. Kocur, General Counsel, Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Peter J. Orlowicz, General Attorney U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, Chicago, Ill, for Respondent.

Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

141 S.Ct. 694

The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (RRA), 50 Stat. 307, as restated and amended, 45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq. , establishes a system of disability, retirement, and survivor benefits for railroad employees. That system is administered by the U. S. Railroad Retirement Board (Board). The Board denied benefits to petitioner Manfredo M. Salinas, a former railroad employee, when he applied in 2006, but it later granted him benefits when he reapplied in 2013. Salinas then requested that the Board reopen its decision to deny his 2006 application, but the Board declined. This case asks whether the Board's refusal to reopen the prior denial of benefits is subject to judicial review. The Court holds that it is.

I

A

The RRA provides long-term benefits to railroad employees who have accrued enough years of service and who have either reached a certain age or become disabled. See 45 U.S.C. §§ 231a(a)(1), (b). It also provides benefits for eligible employees’ spouses and survivors under certain conditions. §§ 231a(c) – (d). These benefits complement those provided by another statute, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), 52 Stat. 1094, 45 U.S.C. § 351 et seq ., which covers short-term periods of unemployment and sickness. See § 352. This case concerns benefits under the RRA only. Both statutes, however, are relevant, as discussed below.

To administer benefits under the RRA, the Board has implemented a multistep system of administrative review. First, an individual applies for benefits and receives

141 S.Ct. 695

an initial decision from the appropriate division of the Board, such as the Disability Benefits Division. 20 C.F.R. § 260.1(a) (2020). If the individual is dissatisfied, she may seek reconsideration from the Board's Reconsideration Section. § 260.3(a). If denied again, she may appeal to the Board's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (Bureau). § 260.5(a). Lastly, the applicant may take a final appeal to the Board itself. § 260.9(a).

This four-step sequence is the primary form of administrative review for benefits determinations. Applicants have a right to seek each of the above levels of review within 60 days. See, e.g., 45 U.S.C. § 231f(b)(3) ; 20 C.F.R. § 260.9(b). Once an applicant completes the review process, or the deadline for seeking further review passes, the benefits determination becomes "final" under the Board's regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 261.1(b).

After a determination becomes final, an applicant can request that the Board reopen it. See § 261.1(a). "Reopening ... means a conscious determination on the part of the agency to reconsider an otherwise final decision for purposes of revising that decision." § 261.1(c) (emphasis deleted). Whether to grant reopening is ultimately discretionary. See § 261.11. The Board, however, has established substantive criteria to guide its discretion. For example, as relevant here, a decision may be reopened "[w]ithin four years of the date of the notice of such decision, if there is new and material evidence." § 261.2(b).

B

Salinas is a former carpenter and assistant foreman for the Union Pacific Railroad. During his 15-year railroad career, he suffered two serious injuries on the job. In 1989, a co-worker dropped a sledge hammer from an overhead bridge, hitting Salinas on the top of his hardhat. Then, in 1993, a wooden railroad tie fell from a truck and struck Salinas in the head. As a result, Salinas underwent two spinal fusion surgeries. After receiving treatment, Salinas continued to experience pain, anxiety, and depression. He began seeking RRA disability benefits in 1992. His first two applications were denied, and he did not seek reconsideration of either.

On February 28, 2006, Salinas filed his third application for RRA benefits. The Board denied Salinas’ application on August 28, 2006, concluding that his impairments were not severe enough to qualify for relief. After missing the deadline for seeking reconsideration, Salinas sent a letter to the Board requesting that it reconsider its decision "even though the 60 days had passed." Record 207. Salinas noted, among other things, that he had "more medical records to provide." Ibid. The Reconsideration Section denied Salinas’ request, finding that he had failed to demonstrate good cause for his late filing. See 20 C.F.R. § 260.3(c). Salinas did not appeal.

Seven years later, on December 26, 2013, Salinas filed his fourth application for RRA benefits. This time, his application was granted. Although Salinas was deemed disabled as of October 9, 2010, his benefits began on December 1, 2012, 12 months prior to the date on which he filed his successful application. Under the RRA, disability benefits begin on the latest of several alternative start dates, and Salinas’ application-based start date was later than his disability onset date. See Record 8; 45 U.S.C. § 231d(a)(ii) ; 20 C.F.R. § 218.9(c).

Salinas timely sought reconsideration of the amount and start date of his benefits. The Reconsideration Section denied relief, and Salinas appealed to the Bureau. On appeal, Salinas argued that his 2006 application should be reopened because the Board had not considered certain medical records in existence at the time when it

141 S.Ct. 696

denied him benefits. Salinas submitted the records as part of his appeal.

On August 26, 2016, the Bureau denied Salinas’ request to reopen the 2006 decision. The Bureau concluded that Salinas had failed to seek reopening based on "new and material evidence" within four years of the decision at issue, as required by regulation. 20 C.F.R. § 261.2(b). Salinas appealed to the Board, which affirmed the Bureau's decision on the ground that Salinas had not met the criteria for reopening under § 261.2. The Board notified Salinas that he could seek judicial review of the Board's decision within one year.

Salinas filed a timely pro se petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 765 Fed.Appx. 79, 80–81 (2019) (per curiam ). In a previous decision, the Fifth Circuit had joined the majority of Circuits in holding that federal courts cannot review the Board's refusal to reopen a prior benefits determination. See Roberts v. Railroad Retirement Bd. , 346 F.3d 139, 141 (2003). The Fifth Circuit noted a longstanding split among the Circuits on this issue. 765 Fed.Appx. at 80–81 (citing cases).

We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 589 U. S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1102, 206 L.Ed.2d 176 (2020).

II

Section 231g of the RRA provides that, except for the deadline for seeking review, "[d]ecisions of the Board determining the rights or liabilities of any person" under the RRA "shall be subject to judicial review in the same manner, subject to the same limitations, and all provisions of law shall apply in the same manner as though the decision were a determination of corresponding rights or liabilities under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act." 45 U.S.C. § 231g. In other words, § 231g makes judicial review available under the RRA to the same extent that review is available under the RUIA.¹ This case, therefore, turns on the RUIA's judicial review provision, 45 U.S.C. § 355(f).

Section 355(f) provides: "Any claimant, or any railway labor organization organized in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act ..., of which claimant is a member, or any base-year employer of the claimant, or any other party aggrieved by a final decision under subsection (c) of this section, may ... obtain a review of any final decision of the Board."² To qualify for judicial review under this provision, the Board's refusal to reopen its

141 S.Ct. 697

denial of Salinas’ 2006 application must constitute "any final decision of the Board." It does.

A

The text of § 355(f) starts our analysis. The phrase "any final decision" is broad, and it reflects Congress’ intent to define the scope of review "expansively." Smith v. Berryhill , 587 U. S. ––––, ––––, 139 S.Ct. 1765, 1774, 204 L.Ed.2d 62 (2019) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The phrase "denotes some kind of terminal...