Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06295/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06295-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Bowman
Appellant
Secretary of Health & Human Services
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~.J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSUnited 8taWi Qou~ of APMlt 

'l'erith-C{rcult 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KENNETH BOWMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 2 5 199J 

ROBERT L. HOECKER Clerk . 

No. 92-6295 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1309-R) 

(W. Dist. of Okla. ) 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma -

terially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a ) ; Tenth Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Kenneth Bowman appeals from an order and judgment of 

dismissal entered by the district court. 

Bowman applied for Social Security disability benefits on 

August 18, 1987. On October 27, 1988, an administrative law judge 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall no t 

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: 92-6295 Document: 010110176478 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 1 
{ALJ) denied Bowman's application. The Appeals Council denied 

review and Bowman appealed to the district court. 

On June 28, 1990, the district court entered an opinion 

remanding Bowman's case back to the Appeals Council for further 

administrative proceedings. The remand was predicated on the district court's findings that it was not clear whether the ALJ had 

applied the correct standards in considering Bowman's allegations 

of disabling pain. 

On July 20, 1990, the Appeals Council remanded the case to 

the ALJ for further proceedings in accordance with the order of 

the district court. The Appeals Council also vacated the 

Secretary's prior final order denying Bowman benefits. 

Notwithstanding the pending remand, the Secretary, on August 

19, 1990, issued Bowman a notice of award of disability benefits. 

On October 8, 1990, the Secretary issued a similar notice to 

Bowman's children. Bowman and his children thereafter received 

several thousand dollars in benefits. Subsequent thereto, 

however, the Secretary notified Bowman on February 4, 1991, that 

his case had been er~oneously processed for payment and that 

since no final decision had been reached by the Secretary 

subsequent to the remand, all be ne fits would be suspended pending 

a final administrative decision. 

On May 1, 1991, notice was issued that a supplemental hearing 

would be conducted on May 23, 1991. On May 3, 1991, Bowman filed 

a complaint for a temporary restraining order and for an order 

permanently enjoining the Secretary from conducting any further 

hearings on his disability claim. Thereafter, following 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6295 Document: 010110176478 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 2 
negotiations by the parties, Bowman agreed to withdraw his motion 

for a temporary restraining order in exchange for an indefinite 

postponement of the administrative hearing scheduled for May 23, 

1991. The issue of the permanent injunction was subsequently 

assigned to a magistrate judge. 

On October 18, 1991, the magistrate judge filed a Report and 

Recommendation in which he recommended that Bowman's complaint be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On November 4, 1991, the 

district court issued an order adopting the magistrate judge's 

Report and Recommendation and dismissing Bowman's complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction. Within its order, the district court found 

that "[t]here is ample evidence in the record to support the 

Magistrate's proposed finding that 'the Secretary erroneously paid 

benefits to the Claimant, and thus there has not been a final 

decision' following remand." (Appellant's Opening Brief at p. 9). 

For whatever reason, but through no fault of Bowman or his 

counsel, Bowman did not receive a copy of the order of dismissal 

until July 10, 1992. On August 14, 1992, the district court 

entered an order in which it simultaneously vacated its order of 

November 4, 1991, re-entered same, and dismissed Bowman's 

complaint. 

On appeal, Bowman contends that the district court erred in 

finding that: it was without subject matter jurisdiction; there 

was ample evidence that the Secretary had erroneously awarded and 

paid benefits; the Secretary should not be estopped from ceasing 

payments to Bowman; and in permitting cessation of the benefits. 

Because of its dispositive nature, our discussion will be limited 

-3-

- - -- ----

Appellate Case: 92-6295 Document: 010110176478 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 3 
to Bowman's first allegation of error, i.e., that the district 

court erred in finding that it was without subject matter 

jurisdiction. We disagree. 

The Social Security Act provides for district court review of 

the Secretary's determinations. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 

749, 763 (1975). The Act, specifically 24 U.S.C. § 405(g), 

"clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency 

action, a 'final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.'" 

Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). "[W]hen a case is 

remanded by a Federal court for further consideration, the decision of the administrative law judge will become the final decision of the Secretary after remand ... unless the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction of the case . " 20 C.F.R. § 404.984(a). 

"If the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction [it] will 

either make a new, independent decision based on the entire record 

that will be the final decision of the Secretary after remand or 

remand the case to an administrative law judge for further 

proceedings." Id . 

Applying these stan~ards, we hold that the district court did 

not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

Neither the Appeals Council nor the ALJ entered a final decision 

following the district court's remand. 

We AFFIRM. 

-4 -

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6295 Document: 010110176478 Date Filed: 02/25/1993 Page: 4