Satterfield v. Celebrezze, Civ. A. No. 4910.
| Decision Date | 28 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4910. |
| Citation | Satterfield v. Celebrezze, 244 F.Supp. 190 (D. S.C. 1965) |
| Parties | Rosa H. SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. Anthony CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
John C. Williams, U. S. Atty., and Geddes Hugh Martin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Greenville, S. C., for defendant.
Defendant, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, has moved to dismiss this action on the basis that the appeal to this Court from an adverse decision of the Secretary was not made within the sixty days provided for in the applicable statute.
There is no dispute as to the time involved.Plaintiff's complaint was filed sixty-one days after the notice of an adverse decision was mailed to plaintiff by the Secretary or his representative in Washington.
Counsel for plaintiff avers that the time should begin to run sixty days after receipt of the notice, not sixty days from the date of the mailing.Regretfully, this argument fails.
Judicial review of final decisions on claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act is provided for and limited by Sections 205(g) and (h) of said Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and (h).The remedy provided therein is exclusive.The language of these relevant subsections is as follows:
The reasoning and discussion set out by this Court in Knight v. Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 897(W.D.S.C.1965) is applicable here.There were two plaintiffs therein, one filed a complaint one day late, the other three days late.The actions were dismissed because there is simply no jurisdiction in the District Court after the sixty day period.
As was pointed out in Knight, supra, at page 900:
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act contains the sole jurisdictional basis for maintaining an action against the Secretary * * * for judicial review of a final decision * * * on a Title II claim.Congress has not waived the sovereign immunity from suit, except to the extent and in the manner provided in that section.Moreover, Congress expressly evidenced its intent to bar any other basis for jurisdiction of a civil action on such a claim by section 205(h) of the Social Security Act, quotedsupra.
The complaint must show upon its face that it was filed "within sixty days after the mailing of notice to the plaintiff" or the claim is not cognizable.Saxon v....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
In re Collated Products Corp.
...with the duty of forwarding the mail. Texas Casualty Insurance Co. v. McDonald, 269 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Civ. App.1954); Satterfield v. Celebrezze, 244 F.Supp. 190 (W.D.S.C.1965). See also, Guzman v. City of Perth Amboy, 214 N.J. Super. 167, 518 A.2d 758 (1986) (in common understanding, mailing ......
-
Kuenstler v. Occidental Life Insurance Company
...held that sovereign immunity from suit is removed except to the extent and in the manner provided by this section. Satterfield v. Celebrezze, 244 F. Supp. 190 (D.C.S.C., 1965). PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE For the reasons given hereinabove, the plaintiff ha......
-
Williams v. Califano, 78-1222
...and procedure for review, applicable in Social Security cases. See Wellens v. Dillon, 302 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1962); Satterfield v. Celebrezze, 244 F.Supp. 190 (W.D.S.C.1965). ...
-
Whipp v. Weinberger, 74-1475
...the Secretary's final decisions when the filing was one day late; Gaither v. Gardner, 295 F.Supp. 458 (D.Md.1969); Satterfield v. Celebrezze, 244 F.Supp. 190 (W.D.S.C.1965); Frost v. Ewing, 13 F.R.D. 432 (W.D.Pa.1953); or two days late, Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1971); bu......