Opinion ID: 475828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hironymous's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Text: 26 Having determined that the exhaustion requirement is in this case jurisdictional, we turn to the question whether Hironymous satisfied the requirement. 27 Hironymous does not dispute that at the time he filed this action he had available unexhausted administrative remedies. 5 Rather, Hironymous argues that (1) exhaustion of these remedies is unnecessary because his action is based on a procedural error and so is wholly collateral to the issue of his entitlement to benefits, and (2) his failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not fatal because the Secretary waived the requirement. 28 Hironymous's arguments miss the mark. In Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984), the Supreme Court considered whether the district court had properly dismissed an action against the Secretary for lack of jurisdiction. Regarding the availability of jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, the Court found that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in Sec. 405(h) for challenging all aspects of the Secretary's denial of their claims, and on this basis affirmed the district court's finding that no mandamus jurisdiction existed. Id. at 617, 104 S.Ct. at 2023. Having determined that Sec. 405(g) is the only avenue for judicial review of plaintiffs' claims for benefits, the Court only considered the arguments now raised by Hironymous in its analysis of section 405(g) jurisdiction. Id. at 617, 617-618, 104 S.Ct. at 2023, 2023. Because Hironyous had an adequate remedy in section 405(g), we, too, conclude that Hironymous's failure to pursue this remedy deprives the district court of mandamus jurisdiction. 6