Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02646/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02646-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

09cv2646 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRENE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09-2646-W(WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(DOC. # 8)

On November 23, 2009, Plaintiff Irene Gomez (hereafter

“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint For Judicial Review And Remedy On

Administrative Decision Under the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.

§405(g)]. The Complaint states that Plaintiff seeks judicial review

of a final administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security, which denied Plaintiff a period of disability benefits.

Defendant Michael J. Astrue (hereafter “Defendant”) has filed a

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition to Defendant’s Motion.

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 10 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 5
 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/ On September 24, 2009, the Request for Review was mailed by

Plaintiff’s counsel to the Appeals Council. (Devera Dec. at para.

4(b) and Exh. 2].

09cv2646 2

The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the

documents attached thereto and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

 I

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed in this Court a

Complaint for Judicial Review And Remedy On Administrative Decision

Under the Social Security Act. [Case No. 06-2051-BTM(NLS)]. On

September 10, 2007, the District Judge assigned to the case granted

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment and remanded the case to the Administrative Law

Judge (hereafter “ALJ”), for further findings.

On August 5, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that

Plaintiff was disabled as of September 30, 2006. [Dec. Of Joan

Devera at para. 4(a) and Exh. 1, hereafter “Devera Dec.”].

On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Review

of the Hearing Decision (hereafter “Request for Review”), which

sought the Social Security Administration’s (hereafter “SSA”),

review of the ALJ’s decision.1/ The Request for Review is pending

before the Appeals Council.

 II

 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant argues that the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.

§405(g), requires a final decision of the Commissioner of the SSA

before a claimant can commence a civil action in federal court.

Since a Request for Review of the ALJ’s August 5, 2009 decision is

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 10 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 5
 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

09cv2646 3

still pending before the Appeals Council, Plaintiff has not yet

obtained a final decision entitling her to commence an action in

this Court. Plaintiff, having not filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion, does not address Defendant’s argument.

The Social Security Act provides that “(a)ny individual,

after final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made

after a hearing to which he was a party,... may obtain a review of

such decision by a civil action” in federal court. 42 U.S.C. §405(g)

(emphasis added). The Social Security Act does not define “final

decision,” instead leaving it to the SSA to give meaning to that

term through regulations. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106 (2000),

citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975), Matlock v.

Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492, 493 (9th Cir. 1990). SSA regulations provide

that if the Appeals Council grants review of a claim, then the

decision that the Appeals Council issues is the Commissioner’s

“final decision.” But if the Appeals Council denies the Request for

Review, the ALJ’s opinion becomes the “final decision.” Sims, 530

U.S. at 106-107, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900 (a)(4)-(5), 404.955, 404.981,

422.210(a). When a claimant files written exceptions to the

decision of the ALJ, the Appeals Council may assume jurisdiction at

any time, even after the 60-day time period (to file an action in

federal court) which applies when a claimant does not file exceptions to the decision of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984 (emphasis

added), 416.1484.

Here, after this Court remanded Plaintiff’s case to the ALJ

for further findings, on August 5, 2009, the ALJ issued his

decision. On August 31, 2009 (or September 24, 2009, see footnote

1), Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council a Request for Review

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 10 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 5
 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

09cv2646 4

of the ALJ’s decision. The Appeals Council has not yet acted on

Plaintiff’s Request for Review. Therefore, Plaintiff has not yet

obtained a “final decision” of the Commissioner of Social Security.

Accordingly, she may not yet bring a civil action in this Court. Id.

Therefore, in light of the procedural history of this case,

and the regulations promulgated by the SSA, the Court RECOMMENDS

that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

After a review of the record in this matter, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be

GRANTED.

This Report and Rcommendation of the undersigned Magistrate

Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to

this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than June 18, 2010, any party to

this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a

copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections

to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 

July 2, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 10 Filed 05/19/10 Page 4 of 5
 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

09cv2646 5

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 19, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02646-W-WVG Document 10 Filed 05/19/10 Page 5 of 5