Court Opinion

ID: 9473566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:33:07.743397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:36.206085
License: Public Domain

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. First, I am persuaded by the Secretary’s position that the Appeals Council has the authority to take own-motion review of the AU’s decision. We should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations if it is reasonable. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. v. Collins, 432 U.S. 46, 54-55, 97 S.Ct. 2229, 2234, 53 L.Ed.2d 100 (1977). The Secretary's interpretation, that 20 C.F.R. 404.969 provides for discretionary Appeals Council review within 60 days of an AU’s decision, whereas 20 C.F.R. 404.970(a) mandates review of AU decisions falling within one of the four specified categories, is a reasonable one.
Second, by following .the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in Newsome, that the appeals court should determine whether the AU’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, the majority makes the AU the final authority in the administrative process. The Secretary, however, makes final decisions in disability cases through the Appeals Council. Under the terms of the Social Security Act, only these final decisions are subject to judicial review.
The Eighth Circuit has addressed the issue presented in this case and has taken the position that the Appeals Council may take own-motion review of any case within 60 days of an AU’s decision, even a case that does not fall clearly within one of the four categories in § 404.970(a). Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir.1984) “an administrative decision is not subject to reversal merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision.” Id. at 1150. See also Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). Because I conclude that Baker was correctly decided, I would affirm the decision of the district court.