Slycord v. Chater

• Decision Date: 26 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. C 95-4075.,C 95-4075.
• Parties: Robert C. SLYCORD, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia

921 F. Supp. 631

Robert C. SLYCORD, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. C 95-4075.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

March 26, 1996.

Jeffrey A. Neary, O'Brien, Galvin, Moeller, Neary & Flannery, Sioux City, Iowa, for plaintiff Robert Slycord.

Assistant United States Attorney Donna K. Webb, United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City, Iowa, for defendant Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

BENNETT, District Judge.

In this social security disability case, plaintiff seeks judicial review of an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") denial of plaintiff's request to reopen determinations of two prior applications for disability on the ground of res judicata. Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, contending the ALJ's denial of plaintiff's request to reopen a claim for benefits is not a "final decision" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and thus the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff argues the ALJ did not explicitly articulate he was denying plaintiff's request to reopen the determinations of his prior applications for disability on grounds of res judicata. Rather, the ALJ indicated he would not modify the determinations of the prior applications and then proceeded to reevaluate the onset date of plaintiff's disability. Plaintiff asserts the ALJ's failure to state that plaintiff's applications were dismissed because of res judicata, coupled with his additional determination of the date of onset of plaintiff's disability, constituted a reopening of the determinations of his prior applications on the merits, which is, in turn, an exception to the rule barring review of an ALJ's denial of a claimant's request for reopening an agency determination because of lack of a "final decision."

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On December 30, 1982, plaintiff Robert Slycord filed an application for disability and disability insurance benefits. This application was denied on March 28, 1983. On October 23, 1984, Slycord filed another application for benefits, which was also denied on November 20, 1984 ("prior applications").

Slycord filed his current application for disability and disability insurance benefits on September 27, 1991. This application was denied initially, but on reconsideration, Slycord was found disabled with an onset date of May 9, 1985. On May 18, 1992, Slycord filed a request for hearing, seeking an earlier onset date of disability. ALJ Robert H. Burgess ("ALJ Burgess") issued a decision on April 12, 1993, concluding Slycord was disabled as of May 9, 1985 and finding no basis for reopening his two prior applications.

On May 11, 1993, Slycord requested review of ALJ Burgess' decision, citing two reasons for his appeal. First, Slycord sought to amend his onset date of disability from May 9, 1985 to April 1, 1982. In addition, he requested the reopening of the determinations of his prior applications for disability. The Appeals Council granted review, concluding ALJ Burgess did not consider whether Slycord was disabled prior to May 9, 1985. Thus, the Appeals Council remanded the case (1) to enable the ALJ to reconsider Slycord's onset date of disability, and (2) to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, barring reopening of the determinations of Slycord's prior applications.

Pursuant to the Appeals Council's instructions, ALJ Franklin D. Carroll issued a decision on July 22, 1994. In this decision, ALJ Carroll determined Slycord's onset date of disability was November 21, 1984, the day after the determination of his second "prior application." ALJ Carroll also found no basis for reopening Slycord's prior applications, stating that "the ALJ's decision cannot be reviewed or modified." On September 20, 1994, Slycord requested review of ALJ Carroll's decision, and the Appeals Council denied Slycord's request, indicating there was no basis for reopening the determinations of his prior applications.

On July 20, 1995, Slycord filed a complaint in this court, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's decision not to reopen the determinations of his prior applications for disability and disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner moved to dismiss Slycord's complaint on October 18, 1995, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction to review ALJ Carroll's decision. Slycord resisted this motion on October 31, 1995, contending that ALJ Carroll reopened the determinations of Slycord's prior applications on the merits by failing to explicitly state he was denying Slycord's request to reopen these determinations under the doctrine of res judicata and by proceeding to re-evaluate the onset date of Slycord's disability in the same decision.

The court heard oral arguments on this motion at Slycord's request on March 14, 1996. At the arguments, Slycord was represented by Jeffrey A. Neary, O'Brien, Galvin, Moeller, Neary & Flannery, Sioux City, Iowa. The Commissioner was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Donna K. Webb of Sioux City, Iowa. Having reviewed the procedural history of this case, the court will discuss the standards for a motion made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)

The Commissioner has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) provides that a party may raise the defense of "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter" in a motion before answering the complaint filed in any action. The federal district courts have always been courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. CONST., Art. III, § 1. "Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction and have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Marine Equip. Management Co. v. United States, 4 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501, reh'g denied, 476 U.S. 1132, 106 S.Ct. 2003, 90 L.Ed.2d 682 (1986), citing, in turn, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). See also Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir.1994) (federal court jurisdiction limited by Article III of the Constitution). A federal court therefore has a duty to assure itself that the threshold requirement of subject matter jurisdiction has been met in every case. Bradley v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 962 F.2d 800, 802 n. 3 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Sanders, infra); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir.1991); Jader v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir.1991); Barclay Square Properties v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir.1990); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir.1987).

"The parties ... may not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the federal courts by stipulation, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or ignored by the court." Pacific Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Transport Ins. Co., 341 F.2d 514, 516 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 912, 85 S.Ct. 1536, 14 L.Ed.2d 434 (1965). See also Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 25, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2287, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring) ("The cases are legion holding that a party may not waive a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction or invoke federal jurisdiction simply by consent," citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377 n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404 n. 21, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 398, 95 S.Ct. 553, 556-57, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 112 n. 3, 93 S.Ct. 390, 394 n. 3, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972); American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18 & n. 17, 71 S.Ct. 534, 541-42 & n. 17, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951); Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 165, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1934); Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 33 U.S. 148, 149 8 L.Ed. 898 (1834)); Lawrence County v. South Dakota, 668 F.2d 27, 29 (8th Cir.1982) ("Federal courts operate within jurisdictional constraints and ... parties by their consent cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the federal courts."). Even where "`the parties did not raise any jurisdictional issues, this court is obligated to raise such jurisdictional issues if it perceives any.'" White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Lewis v. United States Farmers Home Admin., 992 F.2d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1993)). The federal courts have a duty to examine the substantiality of the federal claim throughout the litigation, and must dismiss all claims if the federal claim proves patently meritless even after the trial begins. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l v. Holden Found. Seeds, Inc., 35 F.3d 1226, 1242 (8th Cir.1994); Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has very recently cautioned that "subject matter jurisdiction should not be used to dismiss a case containing even a remotely plausible federal claim if the parties and the courts have already made a vast expenditure of resources." Id. Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue for the court, the district court has "broader power to decide its own right to hear the case than it has when the merits of the case are reached." Bellecourt v. United States, 994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir.1993) (quoting Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 (8th Cir.1990), which, in turn, quotes Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 102 S.Ct. 396, 70 L.Ed.2d 212 (1981)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1049, 127 L.Ed.2d 371 (1994).

For the court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), the complaint must be...