Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09574/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09574-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony P. Abbruzzese
Petitioner
Railroad Retirement Board
Respondent

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANTHONY P. ABBRUZZESE, 

Petitioner, 

FILED 

Ualted Statet Court ot Appeals TenCh Circuit 

AUG 211995 

PATRICK FISHER -- Clerk 

v. No. 94-9574 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, 

Respondent. 

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

(RRB No. A366-26-7262) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Anthony P. Abbruzzese, pro se. 

Catherine C. Cook, General Counsel, Steven A. Bartholow, Deputy 

General Counsel (Thomas W. Sadler, Assistant General Counsel, 

Arthur A. Arfa, General Attorney, of Counsel, Chicago, Illinois), 

for Respondent. 

Before TACHA, LOGAN, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

In September 1972, petitioner Anthony P. Abbruzzese applied 

for a disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act, 

45 U.S.C. § 231. The respondent Railroad Retirement Board (Board) 

Appellate Case: 94-9574 Document: 01019279626 Date Filed: 08/21/1995 Page: 1 
granted his application, awarding petitioner a disability annuity 

beginning December 1, 1971. Petitioner did not appeal the terms 

or amount of the award. 

On July 2, 1993, over twenty years after his annuity award 

commenced, petitioner corresponded with the Board requesting a 

change in his effective date from December 1, 1971, to October 

1969. The hearing officer refused to reopen the case, finding 

that petitioner had not established good cause for his failure to 

timely appeal the award. See 20 C.F.R. § 260.3(b), (c) and (d) 

(1995) .1 The Board affirmed, and petitioner seeks review.2 

As an initial matter, we address the Board's challenge to 

this court's subject matter jurisdiction to review its refusal to 

reopen an earlier decision. We have not previously decided this 

issue as it relates to a Board decision. We do so now. 

The circuits which have addressed this issue appear to be 

split. The Sixth and Seventh Circuits have held that there is no 

appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board not to 

reopen a case. See Gutierrez v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 918 F.2d 

567, 569 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that appellate court lacks 

1 Pursuant to the regulations governing appeals of initial 

decisions of the Board in effect at the time of petitioner's 

annuity award, he had one year following the decision in which to 

appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 260.2(b) (1972). The current regulation, and 

the 1994 version presumably applied by the Board when determining 

whether petitioner had shown good cause for reopening, limits the 

appeal window to sixty days, but allows for untimely review upon a 

showing of good cause. 20 C.F.R. § 260.3(b), (c) and (d) (1995). 

2 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 94-9574 Document: 01019279626 Date Filed: 08/21/1995 Page: 2 
jurisdiction to review Board's refusal to allow untimely appeal); 

Steebe v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 708 F.2d 250, 252, 

255 (7th Cir.) (holding a decision refusing to reopen a claim is 

judicially unreviewable except when a constitutional issue is 

raised), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 997 (1983). The Eighth and Second 

Circuits have held that a Board decision not to reopen is 

reviewable for abuse of discretion. See Sones v. United States 

R.R. Retirement Bd., 933 F .2d 636, 638 (8th Cir. 

1991) (distinguishing facts of Steebe, court determined it had 

jurisdiction to review Board decision not to reopen for abuse of 

discretion); Szostak v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 370 F.2d 253, 

254-55 (2d Cir. 1966) (holding that the Administrative Procedure 

Act or the common law provides for abuse of discretion review of 

Board decisions not to reopen a claim). The First Circuit, while 

discussing the split in the circuits, declined to decide the 

issue. Clifford v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 3 F.3d 536, 

538 (1st Cir. 1993). 

The Steebe court held the Supreme Court's reasoning in 

Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977), a social security 

decision, to be equally applicable to a Board denial of 

reopening.3 708 F.2d at 255. We agree. In Sanders, the Court 

generally held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not 

itself constitute a grant of subject matter jurisdiction allowing 

3 Because of similarities and overlapping authority between the 

two statutes, and because social security cases are more 

frequently litigated, courts have held that "it is the accepted 

practice to use social security cases as precedent for railroad 

retirement cases." Burleson v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 711 F.2d 

861, 862 (8th Cir. 1983); see also Aspros v. United States R.R. 

Retirement Bd., 904 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990). 

3 

Appellate Case: 94-9574 Document: 01019279626 Date Filed: 08/21/1995 Page: 3 
• 

federal courts to review agency action. 430 U.S. at 107. The 

Court also held that§ 205(g) of the Social Security Act does not 

provide federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction to review 

the Secretary's decision not to reopen a case. Id. at 108. An 

exception to this bar to judicial review exists when the refusal 

to reopen is challenged by "colorable constitutional claims." Id. 

at 109. 

The statutory scheme of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance 

Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 351-68,4 specifically provides for judicial 

review of final decisions of the Board regarding the initial 

denial of an employee's claim for benefits. 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). 

However, the statute does not provide for judicial review of the 

Board's denial of a request to reopen a case. The social security 

statute similarly limits judicial review to final administrative 

decisions. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Applying Sanders, this court has held that the Secretary's 

decision not to reopen a previously denied claim for social 

security benefits is discretionary, and as such, is nonfinal and 

unreviewable under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Brown v. Sullivan, 912 

F.2d 1194, 1196 (lOth Cir. 1990); see also Nelson v. Secretary of 

Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 1109, 1111 (lOth Cir. 

1990) (holding that absent a colorable claim of constitutional 

4 The Railroad Retirement Act provides that judicial review of 

decisions of the Board determining the rights and liabilities of 

parties under the statute shall be subject to the provisions and 

limitations of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. 

§§ 351-68. 45 U.S.C. § 23lg; see also Steebe, 708 F.2d at 252-53 

& n.l (discussing in detail the Railroad Retirement Unemployment 

Insurance Act provisions applicable to judicial review of Board 

decisions) . 

4 

Appellate Case: 94-9574 Document: 01019279626 Date Filed: 08/21/1995 Page: 4 
deprivation, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to review 

the Secretary's decision not to reopen). 

In Sones, the Eighth Circuit relied on Szostak in holding 

that jurisdiction existed to review a decision not to reopen. 933 

F.2d at 638. The court in Szostak held that the Administrative 

Procedure Act or the common law provided jurisdiction to review 

the Board's decision for an abuse of discretion. 370 F.2d at 254-

55. However, adopting, as we do here, the Seventh Circuit's 

conclusion regarding the applicability of Sanders to this 

jurisdiction question, the Sanders decision serves to overrule 

Szostak, thus undermining the Sones decision as well. 

In sum, we conclude that, absent the presence of a 

constitutional question raised by the refusal to reopen, we are 

without subject matter jurisdiction to review a decision by the 

Board not to reopen a case. Petitioner does not raise a claim of 

constitutional deprivation. Therefore, his petition for review is 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED. 

5 

Appellate Case: 94-9574 Document: 01019279626 Date Filed: 08/21/1995 Page: 5