2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-18-2005 

# P allott a v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3749

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P allott a v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 682. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/682NOT 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 . 04- 3749

________________ T HOMAS P AL L OT T A, A ppel l ant v. * J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY *( A m ended pe rcl erk or derof 10/ 04/ 04)

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 2044) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay2, 2005 Be f o r e : RO TH, M CK EE AN D A LDI SERT, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed A ugus t18, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l antT hom as Pal l ot t a appe al s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct2

Co u r to f Ne w J e r s e yg r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ’ s mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s . W e wi l l a f f i r m. In 1 9 8 3 , P a llo tta f

ile d a n a p p lic a tio n f

o r d is a b ility in s u ra n c e b e n e f its (“ D IB ” ). A p p e lla n t’ s A p p ., 7 1 . T h e c la im w a s d e n ie d a n d P a llo tta d id n o t p u rs u e a n a p p e a l. I d . T h e c lai m w as re o p en ed in 1 9 9 3 b ase d o n the e x ist en ce o f n ew ev iden ce . Id. H o w ev er, the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i ty( “the C om m i s s i oner ”) deni ed the cl ai m i ni t i al l y( on February8, 1993) and on r econs i der at i on ( on J ul y30, 1993) . I d. at44- 48. I n M ay1996, Pal l ot t a fi l ed anotherr eques tforD I B . I d. at57- 60. T he C om m i s s i onerfound thatthe appl i cat i on conce r ned i s s ues thathad bee n pr evi ous l ydeci ded, and cons equent l ydeni ed the cl ai m i ni t i al l yand on r econs i der at i on. I d. at61- 66. I n A ugus t1999, an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) di s m i s s ed Pal l ot t a’ s r eques tfora hea r i ng, fi ndi ng t hat h is a p p lica tio n c o u ld n o t b e re o p e n e d a n d th a t itw a s b a rre d b yre s ju d ica ta b e c a u se it “i nvol ve[d] the r i ghtof the s ame cl ai m anton the s ame fact s and on the s ame i s s ues w hi ch w e re d e c id e d in th e f

in a l a n d b in d in g d e te rm in a tio n d a te d J u ly 3 0 , 1 9 9 3 .” Id . a t 7 1 -7 2 . T h e re a f ter , o n th re e se p a ra te o c c a sio n s, th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il rem a n d e d P a llo tta’s c laim fora l i m i t ed hea r i ng on the i s s ues of r eopeni ng and r es j udi cat a. I d. at73- 75, 87- 89, 98- 9 9 . E ac h ti m e, ho w ev er, Pa ll o tt a f ail ed to ap p ea r an d the A L J d ism issed P all o tt a’s r eques tfora hea r i ng. I d. at82- 86, 93- 94, 116- 17. F o llo w in g th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il’s th ird re m a n d , P a llo tta f iled th e p re se n t ac tio n in the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey . T he C om m i s s i onerm oved t o di s m i s s Pal l ot t a’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42A fter the D istri ct C o u rten tered it s o rde r, the A L J d ism issed P all o tt a’s req u est fo r a 1 h ea ri n g b ec au se h e d id n o t est ab li sh g o o d ca u se f o r his fa il u re to a p p ea r. S ee A p p ell an t’ s A pp. , 116- 17. T her eaf

t er , the A ppeal s C ounci l decl i ned r evi ew . See D ecl . of R obi n M . M arq u is, 2 (att ac h ed as E x h ibitB to A p p ell ee ’s B r. ). 3 U . S. C . § 405( g) , ar gui ng thatthe C om m i s s i onerhad y ett o r endera “f i nal deci s i on” as r equi r ed bys t atut e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , fi ndi ng th a t P a llo tta f

a iled to e x h a u st a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies p rio r to f ili n g h is c o m p lain t. 1 T he D i s tr i ctC our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) t o r evi ew a fi nal d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e r d e n y in g a n a p p lic a tio n f o r d is a b ility in s u ra n c e b e n e f its . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe i s s ues r ai s ed byPal l ot t a’ s t i m el yfi l ed appe al under 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e r evi ew de novo the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thati tl acke d su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n . In re P h ar-m o r, Inc . S ec . L it ig., 1 7 2 F . 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t S e c tio n 4 0 5 (g ) “ c lea rlylim its ju d icia l re v iew to a p arti cu lar typ e o f a g en cyac ti o n , a ‘f inal d ec isi o n ’ of

the S ec retarym ad e a fter a hear i ng. ” C al i fano v. Sander s , 430 U . S. 99, 108 ( 1977) . A “fi nal deci s i on” i s not defi ned bythe Soci al Secur i tyA ct , butr atherhas been l eftt o be def i ned bySoci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on ( “SSA ”) r egul at i ons . T he r egul at i ons s etfor th the pr ocedur es wh i c h mu s tb e f

o l l o we d t o e x h a u s ta d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s . S e e 2 0 C. F . R. § 4 0 4 .9 0 0 (a )( 1 )- (4 ). Pal l ot t a pr oper l yi ni t i at ed the pr oces s fors eeki ng D I B underT i t l e I I of the Soci al S e c u r i tyAc t . He f

i l e d a n i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n wi th th e S S A i n M a y1 9 9 6 . S e e 2 0 C. F . R.4

§ 404. 902. O nce i tw as deni ed, he pet i t i oned forr econs i der at i on. See 20 C FR § 404. 907 A s the pet i t i on w as uns ucce s s ful , he s oughtan evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e an A L J . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 929. U pon r ece i ptof adve r s e det erm i nat i ons bythe A L J , he s oughtr evi ew bythe A ppeal s C ounci l . See 20 C FR § 404. 966. See al s o T obak v. A pfel , 195 F. 3d 183, 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In M arc h 2 0 0 4 , the A p p ea ls C o u n cil fo u n d g o o d ca u se f o r P all o tt a’s fai l ur e t o appea rata pr i ors chedul ed hea r i ng and r emanded hi s cl ai m back t o the A L J for the s chedul i ng of a ne w hear i ng. T he cl ai m w as ther efor e pendi ng befor e the A L J w hen P al l ott a fi l ed h i s com plai nt i n the D i stri ctC ou rti n A pri l 20 04 . A ccordi ng l y , becau se ther e w as nota j udi ci al l yr evi ew abl e fi nal deci s i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Pa l l ott a ’ s c ompl a i ntfo rl a c k o f s ub j e c tmat t e rj ur i s di c t i on . Se e Si ms v . A pf e l , 53 0 U. S. 1 0 3 , 1 0 7 (2 0 0 0 ). Pal l ot t a ar gues thatthe thr ee A ppeal s C ounci l ’ s r emands “ eff ect i vel yr eopen[ ed hi s ] cl ai m s , ” r es ul t i ng i n “fi nal deci s i ons ” overw hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . A p p e lla n t’ s In f o rm a l B r., p a ss im . W e di s agr ee. A l though j udi ci al r evi ew i s notpr ecl uded w her e ther e has been a de fa ct o orcons truct i ve r eopeni ng of the cas e, s ee Purt erv. H eckl er , 771 F. 2d 682 ( 3d C i r . 1985) , s uch a r eopeni ng t akes pl ace onl yw hen the C om m i s s i onerhas r evi ew ed the ent i r e cl ai m and made a fi nal deci s i on on the mer i t s . See R oger s on v. Sec’ yof H eal th & H um an Servs . , 872 F. 2d 24, 29 n. 5 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). H ere , n o n e o f th e A p p ea ls C o u n cil ’s rem an d s ev iden ce a re v iew o f P all o tt a’s cl ai m s on the m eri t s. R at her, P al l ott a’s cl ai m w as sentback for a l i m i t ed h eari ng becau se5

th e A L J’s A u g u st 1 9 9 9 “ d ism iss a l d id n o t p ro v id e a p p ro p ria te r a tio n a le w ith sp e c if ic r efe r ence s t o evi dence of r ecor d t o s uppor tthe r eopeni ng and [r es j udi cat a] di s m i s s al det erm i nat i ons . ” See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. , 88; s ee a l s o i d. at74, 99. A ccor di ngl y , the thr ee A pp eal s C ou ncil rem and s w ere notde fa ct o reope nings. I n addi t i on, Pal l ot t a al l eged thatthe l engthydel ayi nvol ved i n thi s cas e and the C om m i s s i oner ’ s r efus al t o m ove the hea r i ngs fr om N ew ark, N ew J er s eyt o H acke ns ack, N e w Je rse yc o n stitu ted d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s, a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld ther efor e have exer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on overthe mat t ert o r emedythes e vi ol at i ons . See A ppel l ant ’ s I nform al B r . , 46- 53. E xhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es m aynotbe req u ir ed w h ere the a p p ell an t’ s claim s are co ll ateral t o an yclaim fo r be n ef it s an d w h ere the harm i m pos ed byexhaus t i on w oul d be i rr epar abl e. See B ow en v. C i tyof N ew Y or k, 4 7 6 U . S . 4 6 7 , 4 8 3 (19 8 6 ). A rgu ab ly , P all o tt a’s c lai m s o f d u e p roc ess v iolati o n s are col l at er al t o hi s cl ai m forbenef i t s , s o the exha us t i on r equi r ementm aybe w ai ved. See M a tth e w s v . E ld rid g e , 4 2 4 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 3 0 -3 1 (1 9 7 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t p ro c e d u ra l ch a llen g e to the Secr et ary ’ s deni al of a pr et erm i nat i on hear i ng w as w hol l ycol l at er al t o cl ai m for b e n e f its). Im p o rta n tly , h o w e v e r, P a llo tta h a s f a iled to m a k e a c o lo ra b le s h o w in g th a t h is al l eged i nj ur i es coul d notbe r emedi ed bythe r etr oact i ve paym entof bene fi t s aft erthe exhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . See i d. at331. I ndeed, Pal l ot t a has notas s ert ed thathe w i l l s uffe ranytype of i r r epar abl e i nj ury , s uch as s ever e ec onom i c harm , s ee J ohns on v. Shal al a, 2 F. 3d 918, 922 ( 9 C i r . 1993) , s er i ous m edi cal det er i or at i on, s ee thIn p arti cu lar, the A L J n o ted th at th e o n lyjusti fica ti o n P all o tt a p rov ided fo r his fa il u re 2 t o appea rw as thati ti s “i m pos s i bl e t o tr avel t o N ew ark i n hot , hum i d, m uggys um m er w eather . ” 6 M ent al H eal th A s s ' n of M i nnes ot a v. H eckl er , 720 F. 2d 965, 970 ( 8 C i r . 1983) , or th p s y c h o lo g ic a l s tr e s s , s e e D u g g a n v . B o w e n , 6 9 1 F .S u p p .1 4 8 7 , 1 5 0 8 (D .D .C . 1 9 8 8 ). T el l i ngl y , Pal l ot t a has pur s ued hi s cl ai m admi ni s tr at i vel yfors ever al y ear s w i thout all eg ing an ysu ch injury . T h e D istri ct C o u rtthere fo re c o rrectl yd ism issed P all o tt a’s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o compl yw i th the admi ni s tr at i ve exha us t i on r equi r ement s of 42 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 (g). A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Pal l ot t a’ s compl ai nt , the A L J di s m i s s ed Pal l ot t a’ s r eques tfora hea r i ng beca us e he di d notatt end a he ar i ng s chedul ed forJ ul y22, 2 0 0 4 , an d d id n o t est ab li sh a “ g o o d rea so n ” f o r his fa il u re to a p p ea r. S ee A p p ell an t’ s 2 A pp. , 116- 17. T her eaf

t er , the A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed Pal l ot t a’ s r eques tforr evi ew . See D ecl . of R obi n M . M ar qui s , 2 ( att ache d as E xhi bi tB t o A ppel l ee’ s B r . ) . T her e i s no need, h o w e v e r, t o c o n s id e r r e m a n d in g th e c a s e to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r f u rt h e r c o n s id e ra tio n . A c laim a n t, l ik e P a llo tta, w h o is p ro p e rlyn o tifie d o f a sc h e d u led h e a rin g b u t f a ils to appea rw i thoutgood caus e has fai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es and i s not ent i t l ed t o j udi ci al r evi ew . See H oy e v. Sul l i van, 985 F. 2d 990, 991 ( 9 C i r . 1992) ( per th cu ri am ) (“B yref

u sing to attend the h ea ri n g , [c lai m an t] w aive d h is op p o rtu n ityfo r a hear i ng and he f

ai l ed t o exhaus tthe admi ni s tr at i ve r emedyupon w hi ch j udi ci al r evi ew d e p e n d s.” ). T o th e e x ten t th a t th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il d e c isio n e f f e c tiv e lyd e c lin e d toT he i s s ue thatw as t o be addr es s ed athear i ng w hi ch Pal l ot t a di d notatt end w as 3 w hetheran A L J ’ s pr i ordeni al of r eopeni ng and di s m i s s al on r es j udi cat a gr ounds w as s u f f ic ie n tly e x p la in e d . r eopen a pr i orappl i cat i on ordeni ed a s ubs equentappl i cat i on on r es j udi cat a gr ounds , t he 3 D istri ct C o u rtsim il arlylack s jurisdicti o n . S ee T o b ak v . A p fe l, 1 9 5 F . 3 d 1 8 3 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir . 1999) . Pal l ot t a has notr ai s ed anycol or abl e cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s thatw oul d j us t i fy w ai vi ng hi s fai l ur e t o exhaus t . See R anki n v. H eckl er , 761 F. 2d 936, 940 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( “w e have found a w ai verof the exha us t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es r equi r ement w h ere the c lai m an t r aises c o n sti tuti o n al i ssu es” ) (fo o tno te om itted). Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng t he compl ai ntforl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on.