Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01380/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

) 

_,, 

P ILBO 

United States tau,c of Appetis 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

OCT 2 1989 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARION R. DOZIER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OTIS R. BOWEN, M.D., 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-1380 

(D.C. No. 87-405-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

OijDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and MCWILLIAMS and BARRETT,· Circuit 

Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Marion Dozier filed an application on October 7, 1985, for 

Social Security disability benefits, which was administratively 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1380 Document: 01019974037 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 1 
denied. Dozier sought and obtained review of his case by an 

Administrative Law Judge, who, after a hearing, issued a decision 

on August 13, 1986, denying Dozier's application for benefits. 

This decision became the final decision of the Secretary when the 

Appeals Council on October 22, 1986, denied Dozier's request for 

review. The notice to Dozier that his request for review had been 

denied by the Appeals Council also informed Dozier of his right to 

seek judicial review within sixty days from the date he received 

the notice. During these proceedings before the Secretary, Dozier 

was represented by Legal Services of Eastern Oklahoma. 

On August 7, 1986, Dozier, with newly retained counsel, filed 

the present action in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma seeking review under 42 U.S.C. S 

405(9) of the Secretary's disallowance of benefits under the 

Social Security Act. -It was alleged in the complaint that Dozier, 

through counsel, requested the Appeals Council on February 25, 

1987, to "reopen" his case and extend the time within which to 

seek judicial review of the Secretary's decision, which request 

was denied on June 3, 1987. It was further alleged that Dozier is 

in fact severely and irremediably disabled because of asthma and 

environmental restrictions causing breathing problems, and that 

because of such disability, coupled with a lack of education, he 

can no longer work as a painter, laborer, and satellite dish 

installer or any other occupation, and is therefore entitled to 

disability benefits. 

the 

The Secretary filed a motion to dismiss on 

action had not been filed within sixty 

-2-

the ground that 

days after the 

Appellate Case: 88-1380 Document: 01019974037 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 2 
~ Secretary's final decision, as required by 42 u.s.c. § 405(9). 

The district court granted the Secretary's motion and dismissed 

the action. Dozier appeals. We affirm. 

The decision of the Appeals Council was on October 22, 1986. 

The sixty-day period prescribed by 42 u.s.c. § 405(9) expired on 

or about December 22, 1986. The present action was commenced on 

August 7, 1987, more than seven months out-of-time. Clearly, the 

action was not filed within the time allowed by the statute and 

was subject to a motion to dismiss. 

Counsel for Dozier does not claim that the action was timely 

commenced. Rather, he argues that under§ 405(g) the Secretary is 

empowered to extend the time within which the action must be commenced and that in the instant case the Appeals Council abused its 

discretion in denying Dozier's request to reopen and grant 

additional time to commence his action. In this latter 

connection, Dozier's retained counsel on February 25, 1987, wrote 

the Appeals Council requesting additional time within which to 

file an action in district court and set forth the reasons for 

such request. On June 3, 1987, the Appeals Council denied 

Dozier's request for additional time and set forth its reasons for 

such denial. 

On appeal, Dozier argues that the Appeals Council's denial of 

his request for additional time to commence an action for judicial 

review was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion. The 

Secretary's position is that the Appeals Council's denial of 

Dozier's request for additional time to file is not subject to 

judicial review. We agree with the Secretary. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1380 Document: 01019974037 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 3 
l 

I, The question then is whether the Appeals Council's denial of 

Dozier's request that his case be reopened and that he be granted 

additional time to seek judicial - review is itself subject to 

judicial review. 1 As indicated above, our answer to that question 

is in the negative. 

42 u.s.c. S 405(h) provides, in part, that: 

No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall 

be reviewed by any person, tribunal or governmental 

agency except as herein provided. 

42 u.s.c. 405(g) provides, in part, as follows: 

Any individual, after any final decision of the 

Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, 

irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a 

review of such decision by a civil action commenced 

within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of 

such decision or within such further time as the 

Secretary may allow. 

In Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977), the Supreme Court 

held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not itself 

constitute an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction 

permitting federal judicial review of the actions of the Secretary 

under the Social Security Act. Id. at 107. The Supreme Court 

further held that 42 u.s.c. S 205(9) limits federal judicial 

review of a decision of the Secretary to "a final decision of the 

Secretary made after hearing." Id. at 108. In Califano the 

claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary's decision not to 

reopen his case, and the Supreme Court held that a decision by the 

1 The request to reopen and extend was filed 125 days after the 

Appeals Council's order of October 22, 1986, advising Dozier that 

he had 60 days to seek judicial review of its denial of his 

request for review of the Administrative Law Judge's decision. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-1380 Document: 01019974037 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 4 
j 

I 

lr Secretary not 

Secretary made 

to 

after 

reopen a case was not a "final decision of the 

hearing," and was therefore not reviewable by 

federal courts. 

In White v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 91, 93 (10th Cir. 1984) we 

observed as follows: 

All circuits that have considered the question after 

Sanders [Califano v. Sanders] have held that a decision 

of the Social Security Administration (SSA) not to 

reopen is unreviewable, whether or not the SSA held a 

hearing on whether good cause for the late filing was 

shown. See Davis v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 934 (9th 

Cir.1982); Giacone v. Schweiker, 656 F.2d 1238 (7th 

Cir.1981); Rios v. Secretary of Health, Education and 

Welfare, 614 F.2d 25 (1st Cir.1980); Hensley v. 

Califano, 601 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1979); Carney v. 

Califano, 598 F.2d 472 (8th Cir.1979); Teague v. 

Califano, 560 F.2d 615 (4th Cir.1977). 

Stone v. Heckler, 778 F.2d 645 (11th Cir. 1986) and Peterson 

v. Califano, 631 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1980) involve the precise 

matter at issue · in the instant case. In Stone and Peterson the 

Eleventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit respectively ruled that the 

Appeals Council's denial of a request by a claimant that he be 

given additional time to file suit in federal district court is 

not subject to federal judicial review. 

Both Califano and White recognize that there may be federal 

judicial review when the Secretary's denial of a petition to 

reopen is itself challenged on constitutional grounds. Dozier 

attempts to bring himself within this exception. It is true that 

in his petition to reopen and extend time Dozier, through counsel, 

claimed, inter alia, that the Administrative Law Judge made his 

decision in an "unconstitutional manner" by using "a post-hearing 

medical advisor which the claimant was not permitted to crossexamine." In denying the petition to reopen and extend time, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-1380 Document: 01019974037 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 5 
i 

~ however, the Appeals Council noted that the interrogatories sent 

to the medical advisor "were preferred [sic] to the claimant's 

representative (Exhibit 34) and that no objection to the inclusion 

of the medical adviser's opinion into the record was made." Be 

that as it may, the "constitutional issue" sought to be injected 

by counsel into this case is not the type of "constitutionai 

issue" identified in Califano or considered in White. 

Counsel's reliance on Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 

(2nd Cir. 1966) and Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986) 

is misplaced. Cappadora did hold that the Secretary's decision 

not to reopen a denial of benefits was subject to judicial review 

for abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act, 

but such holding was, in effect, overruled by Califano v. Sanders. 

Bowen recognizes the doctrine of "equitable tolling" of the 60 day 

provision in § 405(9) where the Secretary has "adopted an 

unlawful, unpublished policy under which countless deserving 

claimants were denied benefits." Bowen, 476 U.S. at 473. Such is 

not out case. Mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Judgment affirmed. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. McWilliams 

Circuit .Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1380 Document: 01019974037 Date Filed: 10/02/1989 Page: 6