Arnold v. Astrue

Filing 12

ORDER Adopting in Substantial Part re 11 Report and Recommendation; and Denying 7 Motion to Dismiss. It is hereby ordered that the Report and Recommendation is adopted in substantial part and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied. This act ion is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for an administrative hearing and merit-based consideration of Plaintiff's 2/27/2008 application for benefits. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/20/2011. (Case Transferred to Social Security. Certified Copy of Order and Docket sent to SSA.) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 10CV2003 MMA (JMA)
ORDER RE: REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

vs.

[Doc. No. 11]

14
15
16
17
18

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,

[Doc. No. 7]

Defendant.

On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff Mark Arnold filed this appeal of the dismissal of his

19

request for hearing by an Administrative Law Judge of the Social Security Administration’s

20

determination on his claim for benefits. On October 8, 2010, the Court referred all matters arising

21

in this social security appeal to the assigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation

22

pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) of title 28 of the United States Code and Local Rule 72.1. See 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1. On January 27, 2011, Defendant Michael J. Astrue,

24

Commissioner of Social Security, filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of subject

25

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

26

On June 27, 2011, the magistrate judge filed a thorough and thoughtful report containing

27

findings and conclusions, upon which he bases his recommendation that the Court deny the

28

Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and remand this matter to the Commissioner for further
-1-

10CV2003

1

proceedings. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing

2

objections has expired.1
DISCUSSION2

3
4

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the district court has jurisdiction to review “any final decision

5

of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which [the claimant] was a party.”

6

As noted by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff did not appear for his administrative hearing, and the

7

ALJ dismissed his request for a hearing, finding he had not shown good cause for his failure to

8

appear. The Appeals Council declined to review the decision, stating “[i]n looking at your case,

9

we considered the reasons you disagree with the dismissal. We found that this information does

10

not provide a basis for changing the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal.” See Herbst Decl’n,

11

Ex. 8.

12

Although it is undisputed that no hearing took place, the magistrate judge recommends the

13

Court find that it has jurisdiction under Section 405(g), citing McNatt v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1084 (9th

14

Cir. 2000), in support. However, the instant case is distinguishable from McNatt. In McNatt, the

15

Ninth Circuit held that “when a claimant has appeared before the ALJ and sought a continuance of

16

his or her hearing, and when the ALJ’s decision denying the claim is final except for modification

17

or reversal on appeal, claimant has had a hearing within the meaning of § 405(g).” Id. at 1087.

18

The claimant in McNatt appeared through counsel at a mandatory hearing, whereas, here, Plaintiff

19

did not appear at the hearing. This case is more readily comparable to Subia v. Comm’r of Soc.

20

Sec., 264 F.3d 899, (9th Cir. 2001), wherein the circuit court explained that “a claimant’s failure to

21

appear at a hearing, either personally or through counsel, precludes a claimant from obtaining a

22

final decision of the Commissioner and, consequently, judicial review of her case.” Subia, 264

23

F.3d at 903, citing McNatt, 201 F.3d at 1087-88.

24

The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff lacked good cause for missing his hearing, and Plaintiff

25
26
27
28

1

Although no objections were filed, “it is the duty of the federal courts to assure themselves
that their jurisdiction is not being exceeded.” Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136, n.3 (9th Cir. 1982),
citing City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511-512 (1973).
2

The Court adopts the Background and Legal Standards sections of the Report and
Recommendation in full.
-2-

10CV2003

1

appealed to the Appeals Council, which agreed with the ALJ’s decision. Section 405(g) does not

2

confer jurisdiction on this court to review the Commissioner’s good cause determination because it

3

is not a “final decision.” See, e.g., Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492, 493-94 (9th Cir. 1990)

4

(noting that a “final decision” refers to a final decision on the merits of a claimant’s application for

5

disability benefits). Thus, the Court declines to adopt Section A of the Discussion portion of the

6

magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.

7

Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction under Section 405(g), the magistrate judge also

8

recommends the Court exercise jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Califano v. Sanders, 430

9

U.S. 99 (1977). A constitutional challenge to the Commissioner’s procedures is a recognized

10

exception to the rule that a district court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a dismissal

11

in the absence of a final decision. See Califano, 430 U.S. at 109 (“Constitutional questions

12

obviously are unsuited to resolution in administrative hearing procedures and, therefore, access to

13

the courts is essential to the decision of such questions.”). A plaintiff must present a “colorable

14

constitutional claim of [a] due process violation that implicates a due process right either to a

15

meaningful opportunity to be heard or to seek reconsideration of an adverse benefits

16

determination.” Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and

17

citations omitted). For the reasons stated in Section B of the Discussion portion of the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff has presented a

19

sufficiently colorable constitutional claim to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

20

The Court also agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation to remand this action to

21

the Commissioner. Because no hearing before an ALJ has been held in this matter, and because no

22

final determination on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims has been made at the administrative review

23

level, this action shall be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings in

24

that regard.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

10CV2003

1

CONCLUSION

2

The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant

3

matters of record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements

4

of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly, good cause appearing,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

6

1.

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] is ADOPTED in substantial part;

7

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 7] is DENIED; and

8

3.

This action is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for an

9
10

administrative hearing and merit-based consideration of Plaintiff’s February 27,
2008 application for Social Security disability benefits.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: September 20, 2011

13
14

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

10CV2003