2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-20-2006 

# B r a nh a m v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2190

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " B r a nh a m v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 725. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/7251 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 05- 2190 V I R G I N I A B R A N H A M, A ppel l ant v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt

for t he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey ( C i v. N o. 02- 3574) D i s t r i ct C our t : H on. D enni s M . C avana ugh Subm i t t ed Pur s uant t o T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

Febr uar y 2, 2006 B efor e: M cK E E , SM I T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui t J udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y 20, 2006)

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui t J udge. V i r gi ni a B r anham appeal s t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s or der aff i r m i ng t he fi nal deci s i on of t he C om m i s s i oner of Soci al Secur i t y t hat s he w as di s abl ed as of Sept ember 18, 1998, and t her efor e ent i t l ed t o Suppl ement al Secur i t y I ncome ( “SSI ”) benef i t s , but not di s abl ed p ri o r t o th a t d a te . F o r

th e r e a s o n s th at

f o l l o w , w e w i l l a f

f i rm.2 I. Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y for the part i e s , we wi l l r e c i t e the fa c t ua l and p ro cedu ral h isto ry

o f th is case o n ly

in so f ar as it is h elp f

u l to o u r b rief

d iscu ssio n . Br anham fi l e d an a ppl i c at i on for

SSI be ne fi t s i n Jul y

1997. I t wa s i ni t i a l l y

de ni e d. She fi l e d anothe r

a ppl i c at i on for

SSI be ne fi t s i n Jul y

1998. I t wa s a l s o de ni e d i ni t i a l l y , and sh e f ailedto seekf

u rth er ad m in istrativ e rev iew o f th o se ap p licatio n s. Branham file d a thir d app li cati on fo r SSI benefits on Au gu st 2, 19 99 . I n that ap p licatio n , sh e alleg edd isab ility sin ce Ju ly

1 , 1 9 9 7 . H er th irdap p licatio n w as also de ni e d i ni t i a l l y

and on r e c ons i de r at i on. Howe ve r , s he r e que s t e d ahe ar i ng, and ahe ar i ng wa s he l d on Apr i l 9, 2001. At that he ar i ng, Br anham

r e que s t e d that

he r Jul y 1997 and Ju ly 1 9 9 8 ap p licatio n s b e reo p en ed . On J anuary

14, 2001, the Adm i ni s tr at i ve Law Judge i s s ue d ade c i s i on i n whi c h he found that

Br anham ha d be e n di s abl e d s i nc e Se pt e m be r 18, 1999, but

not pr i or the r e t o, an dd e n i e dh e r

r e qu e s t t o r e o p e n th e tw o p r i o r

a p p l i c at i o n s . T h e A L J ’ s d e c i s i o n b e c ame the final deci si on of

the Comm is si on er

wh en the App ea ls Co un ci l denie d B ranh am ’s requ est f o r rev iew o f

th e A L J’s d ecisio n . S im s v . Ap fe l, 530 U . S. 103, 107 ( 2000) . Havi ng e xhaus t e d he r

a dm i ni s tr at i ve r e m e di e s , Br anham the n fi l e d ac i vi l a c t i on i n the d istrict co u rt seek in g j u d icial rev iew o f th at f in al d ecisio n . The di s tr i c t

c ourt i s s ue d aLe tt e r

Opi ni on and Or de r

on Fe br uary 15, 2005. The di s tr i c t c ourt di d not a ddr e s s the Comm i s s i one r ’ s ar gum e nt that i t wa s wi thout3

jur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the ALJ ’ s r e fus a l t o r e ope n Br anham ’ s Jul y 1997 and Jul y

1998 a ppl i c at i ons be c aus e the r e wa s no “ fi na l de c i s i on” by the Com m i s s i one r a s s e t forth i n 42 U. S. C. § 405( g) . None the l e s s , the di s tr i c t c ourt r e je c t e d Br anham ’ s ar gum e nt s that the ALJom i tt e d s uffi c i e nt

s upport i ng e vi de nc e i n s t e p thr e e of hi s ana l y s i s ; e rr e d i n fi ndi ng that s he di d not

have as e ve r e i m

pa i rm e nt pr i or t o Se pt e m

be r 1998; fa i l e d t o gi ve suff ic ie nt consider at ion to h er com plai nts of p ai n; er

re d b y no t s tati ng wh at

her r es idual fu ncti on al ca

paci ty enta il ed or ho w it was dete rm ined; ander re d b y fail ing to com

pare h er p ast residu al f

u n ctio n al cap acity

w ith h er cu rren t residu al f u n ctio n al cap acity . Accordingly , the distri ct

court a ff ir m ed the Comm is si on er ’s final dec is ion that s he was n o t elig ib le f

o r S S I p rio r to S ep tem

b er 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 . Thi s a ppe a l fol l owe d. II. A s recitedearlier, in h er A u g u st 2 , 1 9 9 9 ap p licatio n , B ran h am alleg edd isab ility s i nc e Jul y 1, 1997. She now c ont e nds tha t the Comm i s s i one r ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha t s he w as n o t d isab ledp rio r to S ep tem b er 1 8 , 1 9 9 8 , is n o t sup p o rtedb y sub stan tial ev id en ce. Howe ve r , e ve n i f s he i s c orr e c t , we have nothi ng t o r e vi e w wi th r e gar d t o he r Augus t 2, 19 99 applic at ion b ec ause she i s not enti tl ed to any fu rther r el ie f b as ed on that ap p licatio n . SSI be ne fi t s ar e not

pay abl e for

the m onth i n whi c h the a ppl i c at i on wa s fi l e d or any m onths pr i or

t o the m onth i n whi c h the a ppl i c at i on for

s uc h be ne fi t s i s fi l e d. 204

C.F.R. §§ 41 6.20 0, 41 6.33 0(a) , 416 .335 . Acc ording ly , the earl ie st m on th Branham c oul d r e c e i ve SSI be ne fi t s ba s e d on he r Augus t 2, 1999 a ppl i c at i on i s Se pt e m

be r 1999, even if the ALJ fo un d h er disa bled as of July 1, 19 97 . Thu s, the ALJ’s deci si on was f u lly f av o rab le to B ran h am

in so f ar as h er A u g u st 2 , 1 9 9 9 ap p licatio n f o r S S I b en ef

its is c onc e rne d and s he i s e nt i t l e d t o nothi ng m or e than s he ha s a l r e a dy r e c e i ve d. On e m atte r r em ai ns. At the heari ng , Branh am re qu es te d that the AL J r eopen h er June 1997 and June 1998 a ppl i c at i ons . I n he r

a ppe l l at e br i e f, Br anham

c l a i m s that

the ALJi gnor e d he r

r e que s t s . Br anham ’ s Br . at 7- 9. She i s wr ong. The ALJfound that the r e op e ni ng of

the two pr i or

SS I a pp l i c at i on s wa s no t

ju s t i fi e d s i nc e the r e wa s no ne w, m aterial ev id en ce. A p p . at 3 5 . To the e xt e nt

that Br anham ar gue s tha t

the r e fus a l t o r e ope n the two pr i or a ppl i c at i ons wa s e rr or , we l a c k jur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w tha t r e fus a l . Judi c i a l r e vi e w of f in al d ecisio n s o n claim s arisin g u n d er T itle II o r T itle X V I o f th e S o cial S ecu rity

A ct is prov ided fo r andli m it ed by §§ 20 5(g) and (h) of

the Act , 42 U .S.C. §§ 4 05 (g) and(h), ap p licab le to S S I cases b y 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 8 3 (c)(3 ). U n d er th e A ct, th e au th o rity to d eterm in e w h at co n stitu tes a “f in al d ecisio n ” o rd in arily

rests w ith th e C o mm issio n er. Mathe ws v . El

dr i dge , 424 U. S. 319, 330 ( 1976) . The Comm i s s i one r ’ s r e gul at i ons prov ide that a

“final deci si on ” which is subj ec t t o j ud ic ia l r evie w is avail able on ly wh en ac l a i m ant

ha s r e c e i ve d an “ i ni t i a l de t e rm i nat i on, ” and ha s pur s ue d that de t e rm i na t i on th ro u g h th e ad m in istrativ e ap p ellate p ro cess. See 20 C. F. R. § 416. 1400( a ) . The5

re gu lati on s define an “init ia l det er m inat ion” as “a

dete rm inat ion m ade by

[the So ci al Se c ur i ty Adm i ni s tr at i on] about

e nt i t l e m e nt

or c ont i nui ng e nt i t l e m e nt

t o be ne fi t s , or

about any m att e r di s c us s e d i n s e c t i on 416. 1402 that gi ve s you ar i ght

t o furthe r

r e vi e w. ” 20 C.F.R. § 4 16 .140 0(a) (1). Th e r egulat ions al so li st those a dm inis tr at ive a ct ions wh ic h are no t “ init ia l det er

m inat ions,” and speci fica ll y prov ide that the denial of a r equest to re op en a dec is ion is not an “i niti al dete rm inat ion.” 20 C .F.R. § 41 6.14 03 (a )( 5). Therefore, be c aus e the ALJ ’ s r e fus a l t o r e ope n i s not an “ i ni t i a l de t e rm i na t i on, ” i t doe s not co n stitu te a “f

in al d ecisio n ” f

o r p u rp o ses o f

j u d icial rev iew . III. F o r all o f th e ab o v e reaso n s, w e w ill af f irm th e d istrict co u rt.