Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04109/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Michael J. Astrue has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4109

___________

Heather Efinchuk, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Michael J. Astrue,1

 Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2006

Filed: March 27, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

In 1981, 1987, 1990, 1992, and 1997, Heather Efinchuk (Efinchuk) filed

applications for disability insurance benefits (SSDI) under Title II of the Social

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. The Commissioner denied each of Efinchuk’s

SSDI applications. Efinchuk requested reconsideration of the Commissioner’s denial

of the 1997 application, which sought to reopen Efinchuk’s 1981 application on

Appellate Case: 05-4109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Entry ID: 3292268
2

“When a claimant has failed to request reconsideration, an ALJ hearing,

Appeals Council Review, or review by a federal district court, Social Security Ruling

91-5p requires the agency to extend the deadlines for such requests if the claimant had

good cause for missing the deadline, such as if ‘he or she lacked the mental capacity

to understand the procedures for requesting review’ or had ‘any mental or physical

condition which limited the claimant’s ability to do things for him/herself.’” Byam

v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting S.S.R. 91-5p, S.S.R. (CCH)

¶ 16,101A (July 1, 1991)) (alteration omitted).

3

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

-2-

grounds Efinchuk lacked the mental capacity to appeal the Commissioner’s denial.2

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) refused to reopen the 1981 application, and the

Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s ruling. Efinchuk appealed to the

district court,3

 which remanded the proceedings to an ALJ to conduct a hearing

regarding Efinchuk’s mental capacity during the time period when the

Commissioner’s denial of Efinchuk’s 1981 application could have been appealed.

On January 23, 2002 and April 30, 2003, an ALJ held hearings. Efinchuk was

represented by counsel. The ALJ received Efinchuk’s exhibits, heard the testimony

of Efinchuk, Efinchuk’s daughter, and Dr. Donald Feinsilver, and listened to argument

from Efinchuk’s attorney. Efinchuk’s attorney submitted a pre-hearing brief, exhibits,

and a post-hearing brief. On October 31, 2003, the ALJ issued a decision finding

“[t]he evidence of record does not establish that [Efinchuk] lacked the mental

capacity . . . necessary to understand the procedures for requesting reconsideration and

was therefore incapable of requesting reconsideration of the [denial of Efinchuk’s

1981 application].” Efinchuk appealed to the district court, arguing the ALJ’s

decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the proceedings on remand

violated due process. The district court disagreed, concluding substantial evidence

supported the ALJ’s decision and Efinchuk had not presented a colorable claim of a

constitutional violation. Efinchuk appeals.

Appellate Case: 05-4109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Entry ID: 3292268
-3-

Section 405(g) of Title 42, United States Code, authorizes judicial review of

“any final decision of the Commissioner . . . made after a hearing.” See Mason v.

Barnhart, 406 F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir. 2005). Under § 405(g), courts generally lack

jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s refusal to reopen the proceeding because

a refusal to reopen the proceeding is not a “final decision of the Commissioner . . .

made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-

08 (1977); Boock v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 348, 351 (8th Cir. 1995). Jurisdiction may exist,

however, if the claimant challenges the refusal to reopen the proceeding on

constitutional grounds. Califano, 430 U.S. at 109; Boock, 48 F.3d at 351. 

Efinchuk argues the proceedings on remand violated due process. However,

Efinchuk was represented by counsel, and the ALJ received and considered

Efinchuk’s evidence, listened to and considered all the proffered testimony and

argument, and wrote an eleven-page decision setting forth a cogent rationale

explaining the ALJ’s decision not to reopen Efinchuk’s 1981 application. Nothing

about the proceedings (1) indicates the ALJ could not render a fair judgment,

(2) shows the procedural safeguards were constitutionally inadequate, or (3) shocks

the conscience. Cf. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (stating that to

prove a due process violation based on bias, the decision-maker’s behavior must have

been “so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment”); Skokos v.

Rhoades, 440 F.3d 957, 962 (8th Cir. 2006) (“For the conduct to amount to a

constitutional deprivation, the state actor’s conduct must be egregious or, in other

words, arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.” (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted)); Parrish v. Mallinger, 133 F.3d 612, 615 (8th Cir. 1998)

(“A procedural due process claim focuses not on the merits of a deprivation, but on

whether the State circumscribed the deprivation with constitutionally adequate

procedures.”). Because Efinchuk fails to demonstrate a colorable claim of a

constitutional violation, we lack jurisdiction over Efinchuk’s appeal. See Boock, 48

F.3d at 352-53. 

Appellate Case: 05-4109 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Entry ID: 3292268
-4-

We lack jurisdiction to consider Efinchuk’s remaining arguments. Thus, we

affirm the district court’s jurisdictional ruling and dismiss. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4109 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Entry ID: 3292268