Opinion ID: 6972021
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transition Period Claim

Text: As we indicated at the outset, when Caney Creek challenges the Board’s determination that Satterfield failed to elect review, the company assumes for the sake of argument that the SSA properly processed Sat-terfield’s 1973 application as a regular Part B claim. Satterfield completed his application on June 27, 1973, but it was date-stamped as received by the SSA on July 2, 1973. The “transition period” — in which claims were-to be processed by the DOL — began on July 1, 1973. See 30 U.S.C. § 925(a). No election was required for the reopening of transition claims, since Congress directed the DOL to provide automatic review. See 30 U.S.C. § 945(b)(1). And as a transition claim subject to automatic review, Caney Creek argues, liability for Satterfield’s benefits should have transferred to the Fund regardless of the lack of election. The ALJ, however, concluded that Satter-field had in fact filed a Part B claim. Order of 10/20/86 at 2. We agree with this finding, since the filing date is not always determined by when an application is received by the SSA. The relevant regulation provides: (a) Date of receipt. Except as otherwise provided in this part, a claim is considered to have been filed only as of the date it is received at an office of the [Social Security] Administration or by an employee of the Administration who is authorized to receive such claims. (b) Date of mailing. If the claim is deposited in and transmitted by the U.S. mail and the fixing of the date of delivery as the date of filing would result in a loss or impairment of benefit rights, it will be considered to have been filed as of the date of mailing. The date appearing on the postmark (when available and when legible) shall be prima facie evidence of the date of the mailing. If there is no postmark or it is not legible, other evidence may be used to establish the mailing date. 20 C.F.R. § 410.227. If the SSA processed Satterfield’s claim as having been filed in July, Satterfield risked the loss of benefits for the month of June. See 30 U.S.C. § 924(c). While Caney Creek counters that a July filing would not have deprived Satter-field of benefits because “he could not have qualified for an SSA black lung award unless he had complicated or advanced pneumoconi-osis,” Reply Br. at 4, this argument places the cart before the horse. When the SSA received Satterfield’s application, the agency had to decide whether to adjudicate the claim or forward it to the DOL. Whether Satter-field was eligible for benefits could only be determined after the SSA assigned the claim to an agency. Because we must presume that the SSA acted in accordance with its regulations in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, see United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926); Donaldson v. United States, 264 F.2d 804, 807 (6th Cir.1959), we are satisfied that the SSA processed Satter-field’s application as a Part B claim to avoid impairing his right to benefits. And, as we have already explained, because Satterfield did not elect review of his previouslydenied claim, liability for his benefits cannot transfer to the Fund. Accordingly, the decision of the Benefits Review Board is AFFIRMED.