Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01062/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01062-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

SHARON MILLER

o/b/o T. D. S. PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 06-1062

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

ORDER

Sharon Miller (“plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial

review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner)

denying her application filed on behalf of T. D. S. for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under

the provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). In her Motion to Dismiss the case,

the defendant alleges that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

because it was not filed within the time limitation specified in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which requires

that a civil action be commenced within 60 days after the date of mailing to the plaintiff of notice

of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, or within any time as extended by the

Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration. (Doc. # 3).

Judicial review of the Commissioner's determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). The Supreme Court has specifically held that § 405(h) prevents review of the Secretary's

decisions except as provided in § 405(g) of the Act. Sheehan v. Secretary of Health, Ed. & Welfare,

593 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45

L.Ed.2d 522 (1975)). Section 405(g) provides in pertinent part: 

Any individual, after a final decision of the

Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was

a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may

Case 1:06-cv-01062-JRM Document 4 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

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 Commissioner may allow.

Accordingly, the final decision of the Commissioner is binding unless the claimant files an

action in a Federal district court within 60 days after receipt of the notice of the Appeals Council’s

decision. See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 422.210. The date of receipt is presumed to be five days

after the date ofsuch notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary made to the Appeals

Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.901, 422.210(c). 

The Supreme Court in Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 481, 106 S.Ct. 2022 (1986),

ruled that the 60 day time period specified in section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g), is a period of limitation, which in a rare case can be tolled by the Commissioner or the

courts. The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly upheld the 60 day time limitation. Hammonds v. Bowen,

870 F.2d 446, 448 (8th Cir. 1989); Turner v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 708, 710 (8th Cir. 1988)(per curiam).

We note that plaintiff has not filed a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Further,

the evidence reveals that the Appeals Council forwarded notice of its decision to plaintiff on March

29, 2006. (Doc. 3-2). Therefore, it is presumed that plaintiff received the notice of Appeal Councils

action on April 3, 2006, five days from the date of the original notice (March 29, 2006). As such,

plaintiff had until June 2, 2006, to file suit. After reviewing the record, we note that the Complaint

was mailed to the court on June 2, 2006, and was not received until June 5, 2006. (Doc. 1).

Accordingly, we find that plaintiff’s Complaint filed on June 5, 2006, was untimely. As such, the

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.

Case 1:06-cv-01062-JRM Document 4 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February 2007. 

 /s/ J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01062-JRM Document 4 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>