Document: 496 U.S. 617 110 S.Ct. 2658 L.Ed.2d 563 Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitionerv.Marilyn FINKELSTEIN. No. 89-504. Argued April 24, 1990. Decided June 18, Opinion on Remand, 924 F.2d 483. Syllabus Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is not further divided into subsections, provides, inter alia, that: An individual may obtain judicial review a final decision the Services under Social Security Act by filing "a civil action" in district court (sentence one); such action, that has power to enter judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing [Secretary's] decision, with without remanding cause for rehearing " four) (emphasis added); order remand taking additional evidence, "but only upon showing there new evidence material good failure incorporate record prior proceeding" six); Secretary's postremand "additional modified findings fact decision" seven); court's "shall be except it shall subject same manner as other actions" eight). Respondent filed an application widow's disability benefits 423(d)(2)(B), authorizes award widow whose impairment level severity deemed sufficient regulations preclude from engaging any gainful activity. Under those regulations, surviving spouse who suffers meeting equaling included Listing Impairments disabled. After respondent's was denied ground her heart condition did meet equal listed impairment, she suit District Court, invoking 405(g). The sustained conclusion regulatory definition disability, but reversed remanded case determination ability engage activity regard regulation. Court Appeals dismissed appeal lack jurisdiction, because remands administrative agencies are ordinarily "final decisions" appealable 28 1291. It held exception cases important legal issue finally resolved would foreclosed practical matter if immediate were unavailable inapplicable because, persisted refusing remand, might granted, thereby providing decision. also believed Circuit precedent argument he able at later point awarded remand. Held: immediately effectively invalidating limiting kinds inquiries must made determine entitlement insurance claim consideration restrictions. Pp. 623-631. (a) Court's essentially invalidated, inconsistent Act, restricting eligibility benefits. 623-624. (b) Section 405(g)'s text structure define appeals' jurisdiction. term sentence one suggests each reviewable separate piece litigation. Here, entered pursuant four: "remand[ed] rehearing." Unquestionably this "judgment" terminology, terminated action challenging set aside decided could follow his own Since grave doubt whether benefits, judgment" eight. 624-625. (c) Respondent's several arguments countering construction 405(g) unpersuasive. First, ordered six, since sixth-sentence appropriate when learns existence available claimant time proceeding have changed proceeding's outcome. Second, contemplated seven refers reviews previously thus does fit kind case. Third, eight compel fourth-sentence appealable. That Congress used "final" mean conclusively res judicata purposes include "appealable," meaning usually coupled. Moreover, empowered class orders judgments" within 1291, precisely what done four. Fourth, four limit case, require choose between entering remanding, specifically provides do both. Finally, language Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 877, 109 2248, 104 941 (1989), suggesting type insufficient sustain contentions here, dealt interpretation Equal Access Justice Act's "any action," appealed 625-631. 869 215 (CA 3 1985), remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined, SCALIA, joined n. 8. concurring part, post, p. 631. BLACKMUN, judgment, 632. David L. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Kenneth V. Handal, respondent. WHITE Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide declaring invalid person entitled hold 1291.1 2 * Finkelstein wage earner died 1980 while fully insured II 49 Stat. 622, amended, 401 et seq. (1982 ed.). In 1983, respondent applied Administration claiming disabled section spouses' benefit payments, 223, added, 70 815, §§ 423(d)(1)(A), (d)(2)(B) ed. Supp. V). 423(d)(2)(B) states determined unless which, "under prescribed Secretary," promulgated Secretary, 20 CFR 404.1577, 404.1578(a)(1) physical mental located Appendix pt. 404, subpt. P (1989). If spouse's impairments, will find disabled; particular, consider nonetheless makes disabled, given age, education, work experience. 4 practice differs significantly determining For earners, established "five-step sequential evaluation process disabled." Bowen Yuckert, 482 137, 140, 107 2287, 2291, 96 119 (1987). five-step process, even earner's determines "impairment prevents him working." Zebley, 493 521, 535, 885, 893, 967 (1990). maintains difference supported two pertinent statutory definitions disability. Compare 423(d)(2)(A) 5 impairment. exhausting remedies, sought United States New Jersey, 205(g) 53 1370, ed.).2 suffer met equaled See App. Pet. Cert. 16a. concluded "the id., 17a, "devoid findings" regarding inability though see ibid. 6 Third Bowen, relied its past decisions holding 'remands appealable.' Id., 217 (citation omitted). Although acknowledged rule "in 'as matter' unavailable," omitted), persist after residual functional capacity thereafter 220. conceded based capacity, appealability Circuit. Ibid. certiorari, 1055, 862, 947 7 begin noting before us broad question always There is, course, great variety remands, reflecting turn ways agency challenged courts possible outcomes challenges.3 rather Secretary. necessary therefore why 8 ultimate medical suggested activity.4 Considering "anomalous" actually leaving perform warrant just directed "to inquire [respondent] activity, Act." 18a. claimants can show they impairments "specific clinical . medically equivalent to" Cf. Heckler Campbell, 461 458, 465-466, 103 1952, 1956, 76 66 (1983). stated "remand[ing]" contained no about impact impairment; effect address ailment precluded consideration. condition. 9 Once nature clarified, becomes clear how fits first federal court. use least context litigation.5 fourth eighth sentences buttress conclusion. (Emphasis added.) This describes took although clearly foresees possibility (as here), terminology What happened unquestionably "judgment," determination, considering issue. Furthermore, should undertake inquiry mandated doubt, recognized, order. Thus "[t]he actions." 10 order, none persuade us. argues sixth section, part "at taken proceeding." points out ordering support factfinding necessary. agree "sixth-sentence remand." plainly entirely different outcome proceeding.6 11 reason, we reject argument, seventh reviewing decision." conducted sentence. "[s]uch fact," reference second half requires shall, remanded, hearing so ordered, modify affirm both, file ." phrase "such evidence" mentioned take supra, 625-626. But clear, evidence. 12 actions," view, make operate law judicata. City Tacoma Taxpayers Tacoma, 357 320, 336, 78 1209, 1218, 1345 (1958). true "conclusively decided," reading Nor significance Congress' describe case.7 words decisions," encompass more than meant terms judgments decrees" predecessor statute recognizes core matters contest inference Sears, Roebuck & Co. Mackey, 351 427, 434, 895, 899, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956). 405(g).8 More generally, incident expanded courts' equitable powers; therefore, insists, improper construe misapprehends accomplish "limit" authority Rather, directs entry final, accompanied remanding; contrary, "with 13 already last Term, Hudson supporting here. EAJA, 2412(d)(1)(A), attorney's fees representation during proceedings concerned interpreting EAJA,9 deciding noted 2412(d)(1)(A) construed purpose EAJA realities litigation against Government. counterbalance financial disincentives vindicating rights Government through litigation; purpose, believe "throw lifeline knew foot short" denying mandatory 890, S.Ct., 2256. recognized had obtained court, "prevailing party" until result known. U.S., 887-888, 2255. "should considered parcel awarded." 888, say "part parcel" all purposes, decline today. 14 Accordingly, reversed, consistent opinion. 15 ordered. 16 part. 17 I join footnote 8, responds merits "two subsequent legislative history." Ante, 628, 18 history enactment. "Subsequent history" presumably means post-enactment statute's enactment—is contradiction terms. smuggle legislators' expressions bill currently (which, theory goes, reflects their colleagues understood voting for), enacted means. 19 seems legislators committees views consulted belong institution passed statute. Never, example, seen floor statements Canadian MP's cited concerning statute; Members qualify. No connection that, however, required. assuredly committee members considered, voted upon, particular question—or been it. rejected inconclusive today's footnote, tells (according analysis) 99th 95th Congresses thought 76th intended. my opinion, legislator weight judge yet passed. some situations, expression relating bear provision consideration—which provision, passed, affect statute, statutes pari materia interpreted harmoniously. Such useful, all, earlier plain old one. 21 Arguments history, like antecedent futurity, seriously, footnote. 22 judgment. 23 am convinced, appear be, me expends energy fending off nonappealability, itself demonstrating finality positive way. 24 concur however. think collateral doctrine enunciated Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, 93 1528 (1949). view adopted majority Courts Appeals, agreement conclusions. See, e.g., Colon HHS, 877 148, 151-152 (CA1 1989); Doughty 839 644, 645-646 (CA10 1988); Huie 788 698, 701-703 (CA11 1986). 1291 appeals jurisdiction where direct Supreme Court." ed.) provides: "Any individual, party, irrespective amount controversy, commenced sixty days mailing notice allow. brought plaintiff resides, principal place business, or, reside business district, Columbia. As answer certified copy transcript including complained based. enter, pleadings record, rehearing. fact, substantial conclusive, rendered subsection adverse party submit proof conformity regulation validity regulations. may, motion shown files answer, proceeding; testimony modifying affirming extent provided original actions. Any instituted accordance survive notwithstanding change occupying office vacancy office." occasion agency, someone seeking review, Alcon Laboratories, 636 876 (CA1), cert. denied, 451 1017, 101 3005, 388 (1981). seek broader relief Bohms Gardner, 381 283 (CA8 1967), 390 964, 88 1069, 1164 (1968). None these situations presented express circumstances. Specifically, Administrative Law Judge "found 'medical establish mitral valve prolapse,' might, prevent Neither prolapse Secretary" Caulder 791 872 1986); Borders Heckler, 777 954, 955 (CA4 1985); Newhouse 753 283, 287 (CA3 Booz 734 1378, 1381 (CA9 1984); Dorsey 702 597, 604-605 (CA5 1983); Cagle Califano, 638 219, 221 1981). Circuits recognize "material" requirement materiality Dorsey, 605, (criticizing "stricter position" Fourth Tenth Circuits); Godsey 832 443, 444 (CA7 1987) (expressing skepticism conflict); Borders, 956 (also skeptical). proper context. true, maintains, caption much less judgment." label course cannot control order's labeled nonappealable interlocutory Liberty Mutual Ins. Wetzel, 424 737, 1202, 47 435 (1976). counter intended judgments. relies print prepared Subcommittee House Ways Means Committee summarizing amendments law, amendments. Amendments 1977: Brief Summary Major Provisions Detailed Comparison With Prior Law, WMCP 95-72, 26 (1978) (Brief Summary). print's observations placed usual difficulties inherent relying see, Mine Workers, 330 258, 281-282, 67 677, 690, 91 884 (1947), note warned subcommittee staff informational approved subcommittee, designed section-by-section analysis "narrative synopsis." Summary, I, assign significant weight. Judiciary Report (EAJA), stating H.R.Rep. 99-120, (1985), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1985, pp. 132, 147. Again, conclude overthrows place, period petition appealability. Guthrie Schweiker, 718 1983), proposition petition, far involve Guthrie, turn, Gilcrist 645 818, 819 1981), quite unlike present involved "no clarification part: "Except otherwise prevailing expenses incurred having finds position substantially justified special circumstances unjust."

Category: 8