Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02650/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02650-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEILA A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No. CV 04-02650 SBA

ORDER

Plaintiff Sheila A. Turner ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to the judicial review provision

of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff seeks review of the decision by the

Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying Plaintiff's request for a

hearing. Now before the court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2000, Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI").

(Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

("Opposition"), p. 2.) The application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Opposition,

p. 2.) Plaintiff had a subsequent hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), and the ALJ

denied benefits on July 26, 2002. (Opposition, p. 2.) Plaintiff then requested review by the Appeals

Council, and the Appeals Council issued its decision on September 17, 2003. (Opposition, p. 2.) The

Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing. (Opposition, p.

2.)

In October, 2003, Plaintiff underwent extensive psychological testing to determine her

Case 4:04-cv-02650-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 "Mild mental retardation is typically used to describe people with an IQ level of 50-55 to

approximately 70." Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 308 n.3 (2002) (citing American Psychiatric

Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 41 (4th ed. 2000)).

2

intelligence. (Declaration of Kathryn J. Lewis in Support of Opposition ("Lewis Decl."), Exh. 3.) The

overall conclusion was that Plaintiff had an IQ of 70, putting her in the bottom 2% of the population.1

(Id.) 

On January 17, 2004 the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") sent a notice to Plaintiff, indicating

that there would be a hearing at 9:30 AM, February 18, 2004. (Defendant's Notice, Motion, and

Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Motion"), p. 2.) The

notice stated that failure to attend the hearing could result in dismissal of the application. (Declaration

of Dennis V. Ford in Support of Motion ("Ford Decl."), Exh. 2.) On February 11, 2004, Plaintiff signed

the acknowledgment form, indicating that she would attend the hearing. (Id.) The hearing office of the

ALJ received the form on February 13, 2004, but it was not associated with Plaintiff's claim file until

February 23, 2004. (Motion, p. 2, n.1.) On February 17, 2004, the hearing office called Plaintiff to

determine if she would be attending the hearing. (Ford Decl., Exh. 4.) Plaintiff indicated that she would

attend the hearing. (Id.)

On February 18, 2004, Plaintiff did not arrive for the 9:30 hearing as scheduled. (Id.) Plaintiff

arrived at the hearing office at 2:30, and had attended an awards ceremony that morning. (Id.) Plaintiff

was carrying the notice of the hearing, and the notice clearly specified the 9:30 appointment time. (Id.)

On February 18, 2004, the ALJ issued an order dismissing the request for hearing, and the order

indicated only that Plaintiff did not appear for the hearing. (Ford Decl., Exh. 3.) On February 23, 2004,

the ALJ issued a revised order dismissing the request for hearing after it came to his attention that

Plaintiff had returned the written acknowledgment that she would attend the hearing. (Ford Decl., Exh.

4.) The revised order indicated that Plaintiff did appear at 2:30. (Id.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff

did not attend the hearing at the designated time because she "felt that her awards ceremony was more

important than the hearing." (Id.)

Case 4:04-cv-02650-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Plaintiff obtained counsel for the first time after the dismissal by the ALJ.

3

 This was Plaintiff's second appeal to the Appeals Council. In response to the earlier appeal,

the Appeals Council had vacated the order of the ALJ and remanded to the ALJ for a new hearing. This

second appeal dealt only with the ALJ's dismissal of the second hearing after Plaintiff failed to appear

timely for the hearing.

3

On April 23, 2004, counsel2 assisted Plaintiff in filing a request for review with the Appeals

Council.3

 (Opposition, p. 2; Lewis Decl., Exhs. 1-2.) On April 26, 2004, Plaintiff filed with the Appeals

Council detailed results of Plaintiff's developmental and intelligence testing. (Opposition, p. 2-3; Lewis

Decl., Exh. 3.) On June 1, 2004, the Appeals Council issued its notice that it found no reason under the

rules to review the ALJ's dismissal. (Ford Decl., Exh. 5.) The form letter notice provided no indication

of whether the Appeals Council considered Plaintiff's mental limitations. (Id.)

On July 1, 2004, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to this Court, requesting only that the Court

remand the case to the Commissioner and Plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to show good cause for

her failure to appear timely for her administrative hearing. (Docket No. 1)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)-(h) delimit the scope of judicial review for social security claims. Civil

actions for social security claims are limited to reviewing "the final decision of the Commissioner made

after a hearing." Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). The Social Security Act does not define

the term "final decision," so "its meaning is left to the [Commissioner] to flesh out by regulation."

Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 767 (1975). A dismissal of a hearing request is not a "final decision."

Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492, 493 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1457(b)(1)(i). Although a

plaintiff can only make a direct appeal based on a final decision, a party can collaterally attack denials

"where the Secretary's denial ... is challenged on constitutional grounds." Califano, 430 U.S. at 109.

Specifically, a colorable constitutional claim must "implicate a due process right to a meaningful

opportunity to be heard." Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480, 1482-83 (9th Cir. 1997).

DISCUSSION

Neither the ALJ's order nor the notice of the Appeals Council action indicate any consideration

of the Plaintiff's mental limitations in finding no good cause for failure to appear. (Ford Decl., Exhs.

4, 5.) The issue before the Court is whether the Commissioner's failure to consider Plaintiff's mental

Case 4:04-cv-02650-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

limitations is a colorable constitutional claim of a violation of Plaintiff's due process rights.

An ALJ may dismiss a hearing request if neither the claimant nor the claimant's representative

appears at a the designated place and time for the hearing. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1457(b)(1)(i). However,

the ALJ must determine if the claimant had good cause for the failure to appear. (Id.) In determining

good cause, the SSA "will consider any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations" that the

claimant may have. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1457(b)(2) (emphasis added). Administrative agencies are

obligated to follow their own regulations. Black v. ICC, 737 F.2d 643, 652 n. 3 (7th Cir.1984) (quoting

Pacific Molasses Co. v. FTC, 356 F.2d 386, 389-90 (5th Cir.1966) (citations omitted)). 

Plaintiff's asserted confusion must be considered in light of Plaintiff's limited mental capacity.

(Lewis Decl., Exh. 3.) Because the hearing office was under the mistaken impression that Plaintiff had

not returned the acknowledgment form, the phone call on February 17, 2005 could have created

confusion for Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 2 n.1; Ford Decl., Exh. 4.) There is no detailed record of the phone

conversation to indicate what was said. (Ford Decl., Exh. 4.) Because Defendant asserts only that

Plaintiff indicated she would attend the hearing the next day, Plaintiff's arrival at 2:30 could, in her

mind, have been proper. (Id.)

Extensive testing of Plaintiff in October, 2003 demonstrated that Plaintiff has a Verbal IQ of 70,

Full-Scale IQ of 70, Verbal Comprehension of 70, and a Perceptual Organization of 69. (Lewis Decl.,

Exh. 3.) These scores put Plaintiff at the bottom 2% of the population in each of these categories. (Id.)

These scores demonstrate a significant mental limitation. Importantly, scores at this level are recognized

by the SSA as demonstrating a threshold level of impairment for purposes of establishing disability.

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I, ¶ 12.05.

Neither the opinion of the ALJ nor the notice of the Appeals Council addressed Plaintiff's mental

limitations. (Ford Decl., Exhs. 3-5.) Although the ALJ may not have been aware of the evidence

documenting Plaintiff's mental limitations, this evidence was before the Appeals Council. (Lewis Decl.,

Exhs. 1-3.)

In Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1997), the Ninth Circuit addressed the circumstances

under which a Social Security claimant could appeal an administrative decision based on an asserted

due process violation by an Administrative Law Judge. In Evans, the plaintiff asserted that the ALJ

Case 4:04-cv-02650-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/16/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

violated his due process rights when the ALJ refused to reopen plaintiff's earlier applications for

Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). (Id. at 1481.) The court found that the allegation of mental

impairment, together with the lack of representation by counsel was sufficient to assert a due process

claim. (Id. at 1483.) Here, Plaintiff's documented mental limitations together with the lack of counsel

at the time of the hearing compel the conclusion that Plaintiff has a colorable constitutional claim. See

id. 

Defendant's reliance on the cases Hoye v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1992) and Boettcher

v. Secretary of HHS, 759 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1985) is misplaced. In Hoye, the plaintiff refused to attend

the hearing, and in Boettcher the plaintiff refused to proceed with the hearing because he did not want

de novo review of the entire case. Hoye, 985 F.2d at 991; Boettcher, 759 F.2d at 720. Although

Plaintiff arrived late to the hearing, there is no indication that Plaintiff refused to attend or participate.

Defendant's reference to Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d at 493 (9th Cir. 1990) is also misplaced.

(Motion, p. 5.) In Matlock, the plaintiff's claim was denied after a hearing with the ALJ, and the

plaintiff did not appeal. (Id. at 492-93.) Eighteen months later, long after the 60 day appeal deadline,

the plaintiff requested a review by the Appeals Council on the grounds that he had been incarcerated.

(Id.) The factual scenario in Matlock does not bear on this case.

Case 4:04-cv-02650-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/16/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The Court

REMANDS to the ALJ for the limited purpose of determining, in light of Plaintiff's mental limitations,

whether Plaintiff had good cause for not timely appearing at the February 18, 2004 hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT all matters calendared in this action are VACATED. The

Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02650-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/16/06 Page 6 of 6