Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/319/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:24:11+00:00

Document:
Procedural due process must be evaluated by using a balancing test that accounts for the government’s interests, the individual’s interests, and the risk of error under the existing process as well as how much additional procedures would help.
George Eldridge, a recipient of Social Security benefits, did not receive a hearing before the Social Security Administration (SSA) terminated his benefits. The agency used its customary procedures, and Eldridge failed to exhaust his post-termination administrative remedies. He argued that the lack of a pre-termination hearing was unconstitutional under the procedural due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the lower federal courts agreed with him.
Powell ruled that Social Security benefits give rise to a property right, which means that procedural due process protections apply. However, he found that a pre-termination hearing is not necessary, a surprising result in view of the Court's decision in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), which found that a pre-termination hearing was required before the termination of welfare benefits. Powell refined the analysis in the Goldberg opinion, identifying the three main factors that courts should consider in cases involving procedural due process. First, they must determine the strength of the individual interest in retaining property and the degree to which the individual would be harmed by being deprived of it. Courts then should consider the strength of the government interest in the efficient resolution of disputes and the smooth operation of the administrative process, as well as any other government interests that might be implicated. The final factor to weigh is the risk of error under the current procedures and the extent to which additional procedures might reduce the risk of error.
It is worth noting that Brennan wrote the majority opinion in Goldberg, which articulated a broader understanding of individual rights under procedural due process.
This three-factor test became the linchpin of future Court jurisprudence in the area of procedural due process. It has surfaced more recently in cases involving the detention of enemy combatants after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
from the monitoring state agency. After considering the information contained therein and obtaining reports from his doctor and an independent medical consultant, the agency wrote respondent that it had tentatively determined that his disability had ceased in May, 1972, and advised him that he might request a reasonable time to furnish additional information. In a reply letter, respondent disputed one characterization of his medical condition and indicated that the agency had enough evidence to establish his disability. The agency then made its final determination reaffirming its tentative decision. This determination was accepted by the SSA, which notified respondent in July that his benefits would end after that month and that he had a right to state agency reconsideration within six months. Instead of requesting such reconsideration, respondent brought this action challenging the constitutionality of the procedures for terminating disability benefits and seeking reinstatement of benefits pending a hearing. The District Court, relying in part on Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, held that the termination procedures violated procedural due process and concluded that prior to termination of benefits respondent was entitled to an evidentiary hearing of the type provided welfare beneficiaries under Title IV of the Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the District Court is barred from considering respondent's action by Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, which held that district courts are precluded from exercising jurisdiction over an action seeking a review of a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare regarding benefits under the Act except as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which grants jurisdiction only to review a "final" decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party.
1. The District Court had jurisdiction over respondent's constitutional claim, since the denial of his request for benefits was a final decision with respect to that claim for purposes of § 405(g) jurisdiction. Pp. 424 U. S. 326-332.
(a) The § 405(g) finality requirement consists of the waivable requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be exhausted and the nonwaivable requirement that a claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary. Respondent's answers to the questionnaire and his letter to the state agency specifically presented the claim that his benefits should not be terminated because he was still disabled, and thus satisfied the nonwaivable requirement. Pp. 424 U. S. 328-330.
(b) Although respondent concededly did not exhaust the Secretary's internal review procedures, and ordinarily only the Secretary has the power to waive exhaustion, this is a case where the claimant's interest in having a particular issue promptly resolved is so great that deference to the Secretary's judgment is inappropriate. The facts that respondent's constitutional challenge was collateral to his substantive claim of entitlement, and that (contrary to the situation in Salfi) he colorably claimed that an erroneous termination would damage him in a way not compensable through retroactive payments warrant the conclusion that the denial of his claim to continued benefits was a sufficiently "final decision" with respect to his constitutional claim to satisfy the statutory exhaustion requirement. Pp. 424 U. S. 330-332.
2. An evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of Social Security disability payments, and the administrative procedures prescribed under the Act fully comport with due process. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-349.
(a) "[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S. 481. Resolution of the issue here involving the constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending review, requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335.
(b) The private interest that will be adversely affected by an erroneous termination of benefits is likely to be less in the case of a disabled worker than in the case of a welfare recipient, like the claimants in Goldberg, supra. Eligibility for disability payments is not based on financial need, and, although hardship may be imposed upon the erroneously terminated disability recipient, his need is likely less than the welfare recipient. In view of other forms of government assistance available to the terminated disability recipient, there is less reason than in Goldberg to depart from the ordinary principle that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action. Pp. 424 U. S. 339-343.
a more sharply focused and easily documented decision than the typical determination of welfare entitlement. The decision whether to discontinue disability benefits will normally turn upon "routine, standard, and unbiased medical repots by physician specialists," Richardson v. Perales, 402 U. S. 389, 402 U. S. 40. In a disability situation, the potential value of an evidentiary hearing is thus substantially less than in the welfare context. Pp. 424 U. S. 343-345.
(d) Written submissions provide the disability recipient with an effective means of communicating his case to the decisionmaker. The detailed questionnaire identifies with particularity the information relevant to the entitlement decision. Information critical to the decision is derived directly from medical sources. Finally, prior to termination of benefits, the disability recipient or his representative is afforded full access to the information relied on by the state agency, is provided the reasons underlying its tentative assessment, and is given an opportunity to submit additional arguments and evidence. Pp. 424 U. S. 345-346.
(e) Requiring an evidentiary hearing upon demand in all cases prior to the termination of disability benefits would entail fiscal and administrative burdens out of proportion to any countervailing benefits. The judicial model of an evidentiary hearing is neither a required, nor even the most effective, method of decisionmaking in all circumstances, and here, where the prescribed procedures not only provide the claimant with an effective process for asserting his claim prior to any administrative action, but also assure a right to an evidentiary hearing, as well as subsequent judicial review before the denial of his claim becomes final, there is no deprivation of procedural due process. Pp. 424 U. S. 347-349.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 424 U. S. 349. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
the questionnaire, indicating that his condition had not improved and identifying the medical sources, including physicians, from whom he had received treatment recently. The state agency then obtained reports from his physician and a psychiatric consultant. After considering these reports and other information in his file, the agency informed Eldridge by letter that it had made a tentative determination that his disability had ceased in May, 1972. The letter included a statement of reasons for the proposed termination of benefits, and advised Eldridge that he might request reasonable time in which to obtain and submit additional information pertaining to his condition.
In his written response, Eldridge disputed one characterization of his medical condition and indicated that the agency already had enough evidence to establish his disability. [Footnote 2] The state agency then made its final determination that he had ceased to be disabled in May, 1972. This determination was accepted by the Social Security Administration (SSA), which notified Eldridge in July that his benefits would terminate after that month. The notification also advised him of his right to seek reconsideration by the state agency of this initial determination within six months.
of the administrative procedures established by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for assessing whether there exists a continuing disability. He sought an immediate reinstatement of benefits pending a hearing on the issue of his disability. [Footnote 3] 361 F.Supp. 520 (WD Va.1973). The Secretary moved to dismiss on the grounds that Eldridge's benefits had been terminated in accordance with valid administrative regulations and procedures and that he had failed to exhaust available remedies. In support of his contention that due process requires a pre-termination hearing, Eldridge relied exclusively upon this Court's decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), which established a right to an "evidentiary hearing" prior to termination of welfare benefits. [Footnote 4] The Secretary contended that Goldberg was not controlling, since eligibility for disability benefits, unlike eligibility for welfare benefits, is not based on financial need, and since issues of credibility and veracity do not play a significant role in the disability entitlement decision, which turns primarily on medical evidence.
due process. The court viewed the interest of the disability recipient in uninterrupted benefits as indistinguishable from that of the welfare recipient in Goldberg. It further noted that decisions subsequent to Goldberg demonstrated that the due process requirement of pre-termination hearings is not limited to situations involving the deprivation of vital necessities. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 407 U. S. 88-89 (1972); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 402 U. S. 539 (1971). Reasoning that disability determinations may involve subjective judgments based on conflicting medical and nonmedical evidence, the District Court held that, prior to termination of benefits, Eldridge had to be afforded an evidentiary hearing of the type required for welfare beneficiaries under Title IV of the Social Security Act. 361 F.Supp. at 528. [Footnote 5] Relying entirely upon the District Court's opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction barring termination of Eldridge's benefits prior to an evidentiary hearing. 493 F.2d 1230 (1974). [Footnote 6] We reverse.
"duration of relationship" eligibility requirements for surviving wives and stepchildren of deceased wage earners. We there held that 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) [Footnote 7] precludes federal question jurisdiction in an action challenging denial of claimed benefits. The only avenue for judicial review is 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which requires exhaustion of the administrative remedies provided under the Act as a jurisdictional prerequisite.
"Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. [Footnote 8] "
On its face, § 405(g) thus bars judicial review of any denial of a claim of disability benefits until after a "final decision" by the Secretary after a "hearing." It is uncontested that Eldridge could have obtained full administrative review of the termination of his benefits, yet failed even to seek reconsideration of the initial determination. Since the Secretary has not "waived" the finality requirement as he had in Salfi, supra at 422 U. S. 767, he concludes that Eldridge cannot properly invoke § 405(g) as a basis for jurisdiction. We disagree.
Salfi identified several conditions which must be satisfied in order to obtain judicial review under § 405(g). Of these, the requirement that there be a final decision by the Secretary after a hearing was regarded as "central to the requisite grant of subject matter jurisdiction . . ." 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 764. [Footnote 9] Implicit in Salfi, however, is the principle that this condition consists of two elements, only one of which is purely "jurisdictional" in the sense that it cannot be "waived" by the Secretary in a particular case. The waivable element is the requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be exhausted. The nonwaivable element is the requirement that a claim for benefits shall have been presented to the Secretary. Absent such a claim, there can be no "decision" of any type. And some decision by the Secretary is clearly required by the statute.
That this second requirement is an essential and distinct precondition for § 405(g) jurisdiction is evident from the different conclusions that we reached in Salfi with respect to the named appellees and the unnamed members of the class. As to the latter, the complaint was found to be jurisdictionally deficient, since it "contain[ed] no allegations that they have even filed an application with the Secretary. . . ." 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 764. With respect to the named appellees, however, we concluded that the complaint was sufficient, since it alleged that they had "fully presented their claims for benefits to their district Social Security Office and, upon denial, to the Regional Office for reconsideration.'" Id. at 422 U. S. 764-765. Eldridge has fulfilled this crucial prerequisite. Through his answers to the state agency questionnaire, and his letter in response to the tentative determination that his disability had ceased, he specifically presented the claim that his benefits should not be terminated because he was still disabled. This claim was denied by the state agency, and its decision was accepted by the SSA.
Secretary had no power to amend the statute alleged to be unconstitutional in that case, he does have authority to determine the timing and content of the procedures challenged here. 4 2 U.S.C. § 405(a). We do not, however, regard this difference as significant. It is unrealistic to expect that the Secretary would consider substantial changes in the current administrative review system at the behest of a single aid recipient raising a constitutional challenge in an adjudicatory context. The Secretary would not be required even to consider such a challenge.
claim "for other reasons" or upholding it "under other provisions" at the post-termination stage, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 762, would not answer his constitutional challenge.
that is constitutionally due before a recipient can be deprived of that interest.
"right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society."
Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 341 U. S. 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 380 U. S. 552 (1965). See Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 234 U. S. 394 (1914). Eldridge agrees that the review procedures available to a claimant before the initial determination of ineligibility becomes final would be adequate if disability benefits were not terminated until after the evidentiary hearing stage of the administrative process. The dispute centers upon what process is due prior to the initial termination of benefits, pending review.
v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969), involving garnishment of wages, was entirely silent on the matter. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. at 407 U. S. 96-97, the Court said only that, in a replevin suit between two private parties, the initial determination required something more than an ex parte proceeding before a court clerk. Similarly, Bell v. Burson, supra at 402 U. S. 540, held, in the context of the revocation of a state-granted driver's license, that due process required only that the pre-revocation hearing involve a probable cause determination as to the fault of the licensee, noting that the hearing "need not take the form of a full adjudication of the question of liability." See also North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U. S. 601, 419 U. S. 607 (1975). More recently, in Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, we sustained the validity of procedures by which a federal employee could be dismissed for cause. They included notice of the action sought, a copy of the charge, reasonable time for filing a written response, and an opportunity for an oral appearance. Following dismissal, an evidentiary hearing was provided. 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 142-146.
indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, supra at 397 U. S. 263-271.
The disability insurance program is administered jointly by state and federal agencies. State agencies make the initial determination whether a disability exists, when it began, and when it ceased. 42 U.S.C. § 421(a). [Footnote 13] The standards applied and the procedures followed are prescribed by the Secretary, see § 421(b), who has delegated his responsibilities and powers under the Act to the SSA. See 40 Fed.Reg. 4473 (1975).
"to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. . . ."
"he is not only unable to do his previous work, but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work."
own assessment, the beneficiary is informed that benefits may be terminated, provided a summary of the evidence upon which the proposed determination to terminate is based, and afforded an opportunity to review the medical reports and other evidence in his case file. [Footnote 18] He also may respond in writing and submit additional evidence. Id., § 353.6.
The state agency then makes its final determination, which is reviewed by an examiner in the SSA Bureau of Disability Insurance. 42 U.S.C. § 421(c); CM §§ 6701(b), (c). [Footnote 19] If, as is usually the case, the SSA accepts the agency determination, it notifies the recipient in writing, informing him of the reasons for the decision, and of his right to seek de novo reconsideration by the state agency. 20 CFR §§ 404.907, 404.909 (1975). [Footnote 20] Upon acceptance by the SSA, benefits are terminated effective two months after the month in which medical recovery is found to have occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a) (1970 ed., Supp. III).
below held them to be constitutionally inadequate, concluding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing prior to termination. In light of the private and governmental interests at stake here and the nature of the existing procedures, we think this was error.
"The crucial factor in this context -- a factor not present in the case of . . . virtually anyone else whose governmental entitlements are ended -- is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits."
"many other important programs, both public and private, which contain provisions for disability payments affecting a substantial portion of the workforce. . . ."
Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. at 404 U. S. 85-87 (Douglas, J., dissenting). See Staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Report on the Disability Insurance Program, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 910, 419-429 (1974) (hereinafter Staff Report).
As Goldberg illustrates, the degree of potential deprivation that may be created by a particular decision is a factor to be considered in assessing the validity of any administrative decisionmaking process. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972). The potential deprivation here is generally likely to be less than in Goldberg, although the degree of difference can be overstated. As the District Court emphasized, to remain eligible for benefits, a recipient must be "unable to engage in substantial gainful activity." 42 U.S.C. § 423; 361 F.Supp. at 523. Thus, in contrast to the discharged federal employee in Arnett, there is little possibility that the terminated recipient will be able to find even temporary employment to ameliorate the interim loss.
"the possible length of wrongful deprivation of . . . benefits [also] is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interests."
a request for a hearing before an administrative law judge and a decision on the claim is currently between 10 and 11 months. Since a terminated recipient must first obtain a reconsideration decision as a prerequisite to invoking his right to an evidentiary hearing, the delay between the actual cutoff of benefits and final decision after a hearing exceeds one year.
In view of the torpidity of this administrative review process, cf. id. at 419 U. S. 383-384, 419 U. S. 386, and the typically modest resources of the family unit of the physically disabled worker, [Footnote 26] the hardship imposed upon the erroneously terminated disability recipient may be significant. Still, the disabled worker's need is likely to be less than that of a welfare recipient. In addition to the possibility of access to private resources, other forms of government assistance will become available where the termination of disability benefits places a worker or his family below the subsistence level. [Footnote 27] See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S.
at 416 U. S. 169 (POWELL, J., concurring in part); id. at 416 U. S. 201-202 (WHITE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In view of these potential sources of temporary income, there is less reason here than in Goldberg to depart from the ordinary principle, established by our decisions, that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action.
veracity often are critical to the decisionmaking process. Goldberg noted that, in such circumstances "written submissions are a wholly unsatisfactory basis for decision." 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 269.
is substantially less in this context than in Goldberg.
The decision in Goldberg also was based on the Court's conclusion that written submissions were an inadequate substitute for oral presentation because they did not provide an effective means for the recipient to communicate his case to the decisionmaker. Written submissions were viewed as an unrealistic option, for most recipients lacked the "educational attainment necessary to write effectively," and could not afford professional assistance. In addition, such submissions would not provide the "flexibility of oral presentations" or "permit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decisionmaker appears to regard as important." 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 269. In the context of the disability benefits entitlement assessment, the administrative procedures under review here fully answer these objections.
to all information relied upon by the state agency. In addition, prior to the cutoff of benefits, the agency informs the recipient of its tentative assessment, the reasons therefor, and provides a summary of the evidence that it considers most relevant. Opportunity is then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence or arguments, enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file, as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions. These procedures, again as contrasted with those before the Court in Goldberg, enable the recipient to "mold" his argument to respond to the precise issues which the decisionmaker regards as crucial.
the administrative review system is operated on an open file basis. A recipient may always submit new evidence, and such submissions may result in additional medical examinations. Such fresh examinations were held in approximately 30% to 40% of the appealed cases in fiscal 1973, either at the reconsideration or evidentiary hearing stage of the administrative process. Staff Report 238. In this context, the value of reversal rate statistics as one means of evaluating the adequacy of the pre-termination process is diminished. Thus, although we view such information as relevant, it is certainly not controlling in this case.
In striking the appropriate due process balance, the final factor to be assessed is the public interest. This includes the administrative burden and other societal costs that would be associated with requiring, as a matter of constitutional right, an evidentiary hearing upon demand in all cases prior to the termination of disability benefits. The most visible burden would be the incremental cost resulting from the increased number of hearings and the expense of providing benefits to ineligible recipients pending decision. No one can predict the extent of the increase, but the fact that full benefits would continue until after such hearings would assure the exhaustion in most cases of this attractive option. Nor would the theoretical right of the Secretary to recover undeserved benefits result, as a practical matter, in any substantial offset to the added outlay of public funds. The parties submit widely varying estimates of the probable additional financial cost. We only need say that experience with the constitutionalizing of government procedures suggests that the ultimate additional cost in terms of money and administrative burden would not be insubstantial.
J., concurring). All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to "the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard," Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 268-269 (footnote omitted), to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case. In assessing what process is due in this case, substantial weight must be given to the good faith judgments of the individuals charged by Congress with the administration of social welfare programs that the procedures they have provided assure fair consideration of the entitlement claims of individuals. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 202 (WHITE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This is especially so where, as here, the prescribed procedures not only provide the claimant with an effective process for asserting his claim prior to any administrative action, but also assure a right to an evidentiary hearing, as well as to subsequent judicial review, before the denial of his claim becomes final. Cf. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 401 U. S. 378 (1971).
In Goldberg, the Court held that the pre-termination hearing must include the following elements: (1) "timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed termination"; (2) "an effective opportunity [for the recipient] to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally"; (3) retained counsel, if desired; (4) an "impartial" decisionmaker; (5) a decision resting "solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing"; (6) a statement of reasons for the decision and the evidence relied on. 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 266-271. In this opinion, the term "evidentiary hearing" refers to a hearing generally of the type required in Goldberg.
The HEW regulations direct that each state plan under the federal categorical assistance programs must provide for pre-termination hearings containing specified procedural safeguards, which include all of the Goldberg requirements. See 45 CFR § 205.10(a) (1975); n 4, supra.
"(h) Finality of Secretary's decision."
"The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 41 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter."
"Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. . . . The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . ."
The other two conditions are (1) that the civil action be commenced within 60 days after the mailing of notice of such decision, or within such additional time as the Secretary may permit, and (2) that the action be filed in an appropriate district court. These two requirements specify a statute of limitations and appropriate venue, and are waivable by the parties. Salfi, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 763-764. As in Salfi, no question as to whether Eldridge satisfied these requirements was timely raised below, see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 8(c), 12(h)(1), and they need not be considered here.
If Eldridge had exhausted the full set of available administrative review procedures, failure to have raised his constitutional claim would not bar him from asserting it later in a district court. Cf. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 363 U. S. 607 (1960).
Decisions in different contexts have emphasized that the nature of the claim being asserted and the consequences of deferment of judicial review are important factors in determining whether a statutory requirement of finality has been satisfied. The role these factors may play is illustrated by the intensely "practical" approach which the Court has adopted, Cohen v. Beneficial Ind. Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 337 U. S. 546 (1949), when applying the finality requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants jurisdiction to courts of appeals to review all "final decisions" of the district courts, and 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which empowers this Court to review only "final judgments" of state courts. See, e.g., Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55 (1971); Construction Laborers v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542, 371 U. S. 549-550 (1963); Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 371 U. S. 557-558 (1963); Cohen v. Beneficial Ind. Loan Corp., supra at 337 U. S. 545-546. To be sure, certain of the policy considerations implicated in §§ 1257 and 1291 cases are different from those that are relevant here. Compare Construction Laborers, supra at 371 U. S. 550; Mercantile Nat. Bank, supra at 371 U. S. 558, with McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 395 U. S. 193-195 (1969); L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 424-426 (1965). But the core principle that statutorily created finality requirements should, if possible, be construed so as not to cause crucial collateral claims to be lost and potentially irreparable injuries to be suffered remains applicable.
Given our conclusion that jurisdiction in the District Court was proper under § 405(g), we find it unnecessary to consider Eldridge's contention that, notwithstanding § 405(h), there was jurisdiction over his claim under the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, or the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
Workmen's compensation benefits are deducted in part in accordance with a statutory formula. 42 U.S.C. § 424a (1970 ed., Supp. III); 20 CFR § 404.408 (1975); see Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78 (1971).
Amici cite statistics compiled by the Secretary which indicate that, in 1965, the mean income of the family unit of a disabled worker was $3,803, while the median income for the unit was 2,836. The mean liquid assets -- i.e., cash, stocks, bonds -- of these family units was $4,862; the median was $940. These statistics do not take into account the family unit's nonliquid assets -- i.e., automobile, real estate, and the like. Brief for AFL-CIO et al. as Amici Curiae App. 4a. See n 29, infra.
By focusing solely on the reversal rate for appealed reconsideration determinations, amici overstate the relevant reversal rate. As we indicated last Term in Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 419 U. S. 383 n. 6 (1975), in order fully to assess the reliability and fairness of a system of procedure, one must also consider the overall rate of error for all denials of benefits. Here, that overall rate is 12.2%. Moreover, about 75% of these reversals occur at the reconsideration stage of the administrative process. Since the median period between a request for reconsideration review and decision is only two months, Brief for AFL-CIO et al. as Amici Curiae, App. 4a, the deprivation is significantly less than that concomitant to the lengthier delay before an evidentiary hearing. Netting out these reconsideration reversals, the overall reversal rate falls to 3.3%. See Supplemental and Reply Brief for Petitioner 14.
an evidentiary hearing of the type required for welfare beneficiaries under Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970). I would add that the Court's consideration that a discontinuance of disability benefits may cause the recipient to suffer only a limited deprivation is no argument. It is speculative. Moreover, the very legislative determination to provide disability benefits, without any prerequisite determination of need in fact, presumes a need by the recipient which is not this Court's function to denigrate. Indeed, in the present case, it is indicated that, because disability benefits were terminated, there was a foreclosure upon the Eldridge home and the family's furniture was repossessed, forcing Eldridge, his wife, and their children to sleep in one bed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39, 47-48. Finally, it is also no argument that a worker, who has been placed in the untenable position of having been denied disability benefits may still seek other forms of public assistance.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 421
 § 421
 § 353
 § 421
 § 423
 v. 
 v. 
 § 423
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 205
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1291
 § 1257
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 405
 § 405
 § 1361
 § 701
 § 424
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 § 601
 v.