JO ANN ELLIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 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 district court correctly dismissed the claim because federal law does not grant jurisdiction to review an agency's decision not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for Social Security benefits.
Jo Ann Ellis filed for disability benefits, which were denied. She filed a second application for the same benefits for the same period, which was als…
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 Social Security Act § 205(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
Denied disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act in 1976, Jo Ann Ellis did not appeal. In 1979, she filed a second application for the same benefits for the same period, alleging the same disability arising on the same date. After this application was denied, Ms. Ellis requested a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge again found her not to have been disabled. On review, the Appeals Council reopened the decision of the ALS and dismissed the request for a hearing on the basis of res judicata.
The Supreme Court held in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192, that neither § 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, nor § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), grants the district courts jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for Social Security benefits. The petition for benefits was not explicitly a petition to reopen the prior hearing but it was in effect exactly such a request. As the Court said in Sanders,
We also agree that section 205(g) cannot be read to authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing to reopen claims for social security benefits.
430 U.S. at 109, 97 S.Ct. at 986, 51 L.Ed.2d at 195.
We have ourselves applied this rule in a case in which the Secretary denied benefits on grounds of res judicata and simultaneously refused to reopen an earlier claim. Hensley v. Califano, 601 F. 2d 216 (5th Cir. 1979). That decision is the law of the circuit, and we would be obliged to adhere to it, even were we not convinced, as indeed we are, that Sanders is dispositive. Williams v. Blazer Financial Services, 598 F. 2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1979); Cargill Inc. v. Offshore Logistics, Inc., 615 F. 2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980).
Accordingly, the decision is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stauffer v. Califano, 693 F.2d 306 (3d Cir. 1982)
-
Johnson v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 974 (7th Cir. 1991)
-
Brandyburg v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1992)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1977)
- Hensley v. Califano, 601 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Williams v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 598 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Cargill v. Offshore Logistics, Inc., 615 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980)