Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02039/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Randy P. Rumsey
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2039

___________

Randy P. Rumsey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, *

Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 6, 2002

Filed: November 12, 2002

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy P. Rumsey appeals from the district court's1

 dismissal, for lack of

jurisdiction, of his petition for review of an agency determination that his claim for

disability insurance benefits was barred by administrative res judicata. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 02-2039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2002 Entry ID: 1771767 
2

Under the Commissioner's regulations, a request for a hearing may be

dismissed as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1).

And this court has endorsed the application of res judicata in an administrative

context. Rush v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 738 F.2d 909, 914 (8th Cir.

1984).

-2-

A federal district court's jurisdiction to review decisions regarding disability

benefits is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That section provides for review only of

a "final decision of the Commissioner . . . made after a hearing." An agency's

application of res judicata2

 or refusal to reopen a prior determination is not a "final

decision" within the meaning of section 405(g). King v. Chater, 90 F.3d 323, 325

(8th Cir. 1996). But there is a narrow exception where the Commissioner reconsiders

the merits of an application previously denied. Id. (citing Jelinek v. Heckler, 764

F.2d 507, 508 (8th Cir. 1985)). Such a claim is treated as having been reopened as

a matter of administrative discretion and is, therefore, subject to judicial review to the

extent it has been reopened. Id.

The Commissioner dismissed Rumsey's current application for disability

insurance benefits as duplicative of an earlier, unsuccessful claim that alleged the

same disability. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") dismissed

Rumsey's present claim as barred by the final decision in his earlier claim. The ALJ

did not consider the merits of the earlier claim, but, as the district court noted, merely

"made a threshold inquiry into the facts and evidence of the previous application to

determine if the regulatory requirements for reopening the previous claim had been

met." Because the ALJ did not reopen Rumsey's earlier claim, and because its

dismissal for res judicata was not a "final decision" within the purview of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g), we have no jurisdiction to review it. We affirm the judgment of the district

court.

Appellate Case: 02-2039 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2002 Entry ID: 1771767 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

Appellate Case: 02-2039 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2002 Entry ID: 1771767