Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02024/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02024-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CORRINE MESA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LEO 

Uoited Srates Courc of ApptaJ:f 

Tenth Circuit. 

SEP 5 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2024 

(D.C. No. 86-430-JB) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before BRORBY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and WEST, ** District 

Judge. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

The issue to be decided is whether or not this court has 

appellate jurisdiction when the district court remanded one of 

appellant's claims to the Secretary of the Department of Health 

* 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. 

** The Honorable Lee R. West, United States District Judge for 

the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2024 Document: 010110041909 Date Filed: 09/05/1990 Page: 1 
and Human Services for further proceedings. 

Corrine Mesa filed two applications with the Social Security 

Administration. The first was for disability insurance benefits 

and the second was for widow's insurance benefits. Both 

applications were denied at the administrative level and Mrs. Mesa 

requested and received a hearing before an administrative law 

judge who issued two written decisions denying both claims. The 

Appeals Council concluded there was no basis for granting Mrs. 

Mesa's request for review. 

Mrs. Mesa then filed a single action in district court in 

which she sought judicial review of both claims. The district 

court remanded Mrs. Mesa's claim for disability benefits for 

further development of the record to be followed by an analysis of 

her pain allegations. The district court upheld the Secretary's 

denial of Mrs. Mesa's claim for widow's benefits, holding that the 

applicable widow's benefits regulations are valid and that the 

denial was supported by substantial evidence. 

Mrs. Mesa then filed her notice of appeal with this court, 

wherein she appealed that portion of the district court's order 

"with regard to her disabled widow's benefits claim only." This 

court then requested the parties to brief whether this court has 

appellate jurisdiction when the district court remanded one claim 

to the Secretary for further proceedings. Mrs. Mesa responded to 

our request merely by stating that "the only appeal available to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2024 Document: 010110041909 Date Filed: 09/05/1990 Page: 2 
Mrs. Mesa is to the Tenth Circuit," but cited no authority. The 

Secretary cites Trinity Broadcasting Corp. v. Eller, 827 F.2d 673, 

675 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1223 (1988), as 

standing for the proposition that only a Rule 54(b) certification 

can render final and appealable a judgment not disposing of all 

claims. 

The general rule is that where an order from which an appeal 

is taken resolved fewer than all claims in district court and the 

district court made no express certification that there is no just 

reason for delay and did not direct entry of judgment, the order 

is not yet final and thus may not be immediately appealed. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the case before us the claim for disability 

insurance benefits has not been adjudicated. Mrs. Mesa neither 

applied for nor received a Rule 54(b) certification from the 

district court with respect to her disabled widow's benefits 

claim. 

In Trinity we stated that "a judgment in a consolidated 

action that does not dispose of all claims shall not operate as a 

final, appealable judgment under 28 u.s.c. § 1291. To obtain 

review of one part of a consolidated action, appellant must obtain 

certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)." 827 F.2d at 675. We 

went on to explain the rationale for this rule, stating that the 

adoption of any other rule would lead to piecemeal review. We 

also noted that the district court is best able to assess the 

original purpose of the consolidation and whether an interim 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2024 Document: 010110041909 Date Filed: 09/05/1990 Page: 3 
appeal would frustrate that purpose. Id. 

We are not unmindful of Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 110 S. Ct. 

2658, which was decided by the Supreme Court on June 18, 1990. 

This decision held that the Secretary may immediately appeal a 

district court order which declares regulations invalid. This is 

not the situation before us. 

The dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction will 

work no hardship upon Mrs. Mesa. As the Secretary stated in his 

brief on the jurisdictional question: "During the remand 

proceedings on her worker's benefits claim, furthermore, plaintiff 

[Mrs. Mesa] may either seek a reopening of the widow's benefits 

decision under 20 C.F.R. §§404.987-404.989 of the regulations or 

file a new application for widow's benefits." Appellee's 

Jurisdictional Memorandum at 3. This course of action may hold 

attractions to Mrs. Mesa in view of this court's decision in 

Davidson v. Secretary, __ F.2d __ (No. 88-1472, filed August 29, 

1990) (holding that Secretary must consider any medical evidence 

relevant to residual functional capacity of claimant for widow's 

disability benefits). Alternatively, of course, once there has 

been a final adjudication of her disability insurance benefits 

claim, Mrs. Mesa may bring an appeal in this court. 

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2024 Document: 010110041909 Date Filed: 09/05/1990 Page: 4