Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02074/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Nelson
Appellant
Secretary of Health & Human Services
Appellee

Document Text:

. _ FILED 

Urnr~ Stares Courc of Appeals 

TPnd·- <:ir,..,,it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 11 1990 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

JAMES NELSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 90-2074 

(D.C. No. CV-89-721-M) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 90-2074 Document: 010110059571 Date Filed: 10/11/1990 Page: 1 
James Nelson appeals the district court's dismissal of his 

complaint requesting judicial review of the denial of his second 

claim for social security benefits. The district court held that 

because the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) 

did not reopen Mr. Nelson's claim, the court was without 

jurisdiction to review the decision. Mr. Nelson now contends that 

administrative res judicata was improperly applied depriving him 

of a hearing in which he could fully present his claim with the 

benefit of the Secretary's record. However, our review of the 

briefs and record substantiates the district court's dismissal, 

and we affirm. 

On January 23, 1986, Mr. Nelson initially filed an 

application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits 

under Title II and Title XVIII. In that application, Mr. Nelson 

described his disabling condition as constant cough caused by 

smoking, lower back problems, and arthritis in his hands and back. 

The Secretary denied the application at the initial administrative 

level. Although notified of his right to appeal (Exhibit 3), Mr. 

Nelson did not contest the determination which, after the sixtyday appeal time expired, became a final decision of the Secretary. 

In April 1987, Mr. Nelson filed a second application. 

Finding this claim included the same issues as the first, without 

any new and material evidence offered sufficient for reopening, 

the Secretary denied the claim at the initial level and upon 

reconsideration. Mr. Nelson then requested a hearing. 

Prior to conducting the hearing, the ALJ reviewed the file 

and concluded that Mr. Nelson's "new evidence" was not material 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2074 Document: 010110059571 Date Filed: 10/11/1990 Page: 2 
and did not compel reopening the 1986 application. In the written 

opinion, the ALJ referenced the medical evidence submitted. 

Further, the order noted the claimant's failure to offer 

psychological evidence from treating or examination sources for 

the relevant time from December 1982 until December 1985 to 

support his representation that he may 

psychological impairment during that time. 

have suffered from a 

The ALJ refused to 

order consultative psychological testing or an examination. Based 

on this record, the ALJ denied Mr. Nelson's request for a hearing, 

concluding the matters had been fully and fairly considered and 

were precluded from further review by administrative res judicata. 

Mr. Nelson sought judicial review in the district court 

arguing that a due process hearing before an ALJ was never 

afforded; new and material evidence was submitted; and the 

doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar reconsideration. 

The district court disagreed, finding that it lacked jurisdiction 

to review the Secretary's refusal to reopen an application where 

the claimant had failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim. 

We agree. "Absent a colorable constitutional claim not 

present here, a district court does not have jurisdiction to 

review the Secretary's discretionary decision not to reopen an 

earlier adjudication." Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, 845 F.2d 1136, 1138 (1st Cir. 1988). Nor does the 

district court have jurisdiction to review the ALJ's denial of Mr. 

Nelson's request for a hearing when the current claim has the same 

factual basis as the initial claim. Matos v. Secretary of Health, 

Education and Welfare, 581 F.2d 282, 286 (1st Cir. 1978). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2074 Document: 010110059571 Date Filed: 10/11/1990 Page: 3 
The district court correctly found that Mr. Nelson's 

unsupported allegation that he might have been suffering from a 

mental impairment when he submitted his first application for 

benefits is insufficient to create a colorable constitutional 

claim. The record has no evidence to support the claim other than 

the ALJ's denial of Mr. Nelson's request for a consultative 

psychological examination. With no other objective evidence 

presented to support the request, the ALJ was not required to 

authorize the consultation. 

Mr. Nelson does not contend that the Secretary, in fact, 

reopened his case. Nor does he specify any new and material 

evidence offered to substantiate either his allegation of 

psychological impairment or the basis of reopening his claim. 1 On 

this record, we conclude the district court properly dismissed the 

complaint and AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

the case 

We note 

before 

1

rn his brief, counsel contends the Secretary dismissed 

before he could submit any new and material evidence. 

that 20 C.F.R. § 404.933 explains how to request a hearing 

an administrative law judge and states: 

(a)W ~=r=i~t~t~e=n.;a._~r~e=gu--==e=s ___ t. You may request a hearing by filing a 

written request. You should include in your request -

(3) A statement of additional evidence to be submitted and 

the date you will submit it. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2074 Document: 010110059571 Date Filed: 10/11/1990 Page: 4