ROBERT L. SAMPSON, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, DEFENDANT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's claim was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds and that judicial review of the decision not to reopen is foreclosed in the absence of a constitutional claim.
Appellant filed multiple applications for social security disability benefits, all of which were denied. His fourth application was dismissed on res j…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*882] COFFIN, Chief Judge.
Appellant first filed for social security disability benefits in 1955, claiming that he had been unable to work since contracting tuberculosis in 1950. The application was denied initially, and no further review was sought. A second application based on the same claim was filed in 1964. This was also denied initially, and appellant requested a hearing. The Hearing Examiner believed that the claim was barred by the prior determination, but also determined on the merits that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act during his period of eligibility. Appellant did not seek further review.
A third application filed in 1968 was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, but it was not until a fourth application, filed, in 1973, was dismissed on the same grounds that appellant sought review in the district court. The district court upheld the Secretary’s determination, and we affirm.
Appellant’s 1973 claim was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds, since the claim was identical to the one heard and denied in 1965, after appellant’s eligibility for benefits expired. See Ruiz-Olan v. Secretary of H. E. W., 511 F. 2d 1056 (1st Cir. 1975). Appellant’s claim that his condition deteriorated after his eligibility lapsed does not affect the finality or the validity of the prior determination. Cf. id. at 1058; Steimer v. Gardner, 395 F. 2d 197, 198 (9th Cir. 1968).
The Administrative Law Judge also determined that there was no good cause shown for reopening the earlier applications. This circuit has held such decisions reviewable, Bradley v. Weinberger, 483 F. 2d 410, 413 (1st Cir. 1973), and the district court held that the determination not to reopen was proper in this case. It is now clear, however, that, in the absence of a constitutional claim, judicial review of a decision not to reopen is foreclosed. Califano v. Sanders, - U.S. -, -, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matilde Matos v. Secretary OF Health, 581 F.2d 282 (1st Cir. 1978)
-
Deblois v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs., 686 F.2d 76 (1st Cir. 1982)
-
Rivera v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs., 818 F.2d 96 (1st Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1977)
- Bradley v. Caspar W. Weinberger, 483 F.2d 410 (1st Cir. 1973)
- Karin E. Steimer v. Gardner, 395 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Ruiz-Olan v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Health, Educ., & Welf., 511 F.2d 1056 (1st Cir. 1975)