TIMMONS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 6/20/2017. (tf, n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Doc. No. 10)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
Civil No. 16-1550
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the appeal of Kenyotta Timmons (“Plaintiff”)
for review of the dismissal of the request for a hearing by the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). Currently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendant Acting
Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed a claim for SSDI benefits and was found disabled as of June 5, 1993. Def.’s
Br., Hartt Decl. ¶ 3(a). Upon continuing review, Plaintiff was found no longer disabled as of
April 15, 2013, and her benefits thereafter ceased. Id. A Disability Hearing Officer reached the
same conclusion on reconsideration, and Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. Id. ¶ 3(b)–
(c). The hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2015, but Plaintiff did not appear and asked to
postpone the hearing in a letter dated the same. Id. ¶ 3(c)–(d). While Plaintiff offered a written
explanation for why she did not appear, the ALJ did not find good cause for her absence and
dismissed the request for a hearing, on November 18, 2015. Id. ¶ 3(d)–(e). The Appeals Council
then declined to review the ALJ’s Dismissal on January 27, 2016. Id. ¶ 3(f). On March 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a Complaint appealing the November 18, 2015 Dismissal by the ALJ (Doc. No. 1),
and on October 11, 2016, Defendant brought the present Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Where a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the plaintiff generally bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States,
220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000).
A district court has jurisdiction over an appeal taken from “a final decision” of the
Commissioner made after a hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Either the Commissioner or the court
may waive the exhaustion requirement in appropriate circumstances. See Bacon v. Sullivan, 969
F.2d 1517, 1521 (3d Cir. 1992). The Third Circuit has found court-based waiver where the
claimant raised constitutional issues, as well as where the claimant raised “statutory issues upon
which the [Commissioner had] taken a final position.” Rankin v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 936, 940 (3d
Cir. 1985). The Third Circuit has explained, “In those cases, the requirement of exhaustion does
not serve any underlying policy, because in the former case the federal court is more qualified to
address constitutional questions than the agency and in the latter case further appeals are futile in
light of the final position already taken.” Id. at 941.
In this case, the ALJ dismissed Plaintiff’s request for a hearing after finding that Plaintiff
did not have good cause for not appearing at his scheduled hearing, and the Appeals Council
denied review of the ALJ’s decision. Thus, the Commissioner did not render a final decision on
the claim. See Van Williams v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 152 F. App’x 153, 154 (3d Cir. 2005). As for
waiver, the Commissioner clearly declines to waive the exhaustion requirement seeing as she
asserts lack of jurisdiction in the present Motion to Dismiss. Neither does the case present
constitutional issues or statutory issues upon which the Commissioner has taken a final position.
As such, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and dismisses it without prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United State District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?