Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER. ORDERED that Malone's complaint is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 6/27/2014. (dpk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
LYDIA L. MALONE,
Plaintiff,

1:13-cv-488
(GLS)

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Lydia L. Malone
Pro Se
173 Tampa Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261

BENIL ABRAHAM
LAUREN E. MYERS
Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Steven P. Conte
Regional Chief Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Lydia L. Malone challenges the Commissioner of
Social Security’s denial of her request to reopen a prior application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record
and carefully considering Malone’s arguments, the court affirms the
Commissioner’s decision and dismisses the complaint.
II. Background
On June 15, 2002, Malone filed an application for DIB under the
Social Security Act (“the Act”), which was denied at the initial decision level
on August 30, 2002. (Tr. 1 at 54, 361.) On February 22, 2006, Malone filed
a second application for DIB, alleging an onset date of March 10, 2002.
(Id. at 11, 20.) After this application was denied, (id. at 21-24), Malone
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), (id. at 25).
A hearing was held on March 27, 2008, (id. at 301-18), and the ALJ issued
a decision on April 24, 2008 denying the requested benefits, (id. at 8-19).
The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision, (id. at 3-5), and

1

Page references preceded by “Tr.” are to the Administrative Transcript. (Dkt. No. 8.)

2

Malone appealed to this court, which issued an order on March 2, 2011,
remanding the case for further proceedings, (id. at 387-88.) On remand,
the ALJ issued a subsequent favorable decision on October 25, 2011,
finding Malone disabled since March 10, 2002. (Id. at 382-86.) Malone
subsequently requested a reopening of her 2002 application, by way of a
letter to the ALJ in November 2011. (Id. at 378A.) On December 20, 2011,
the ALJ issued an amended decision, adding that he has found “no
grounds for re-opening the prior determination.” (Id. at 374.) Malone filed
exceptions with the Appeals Council, (id. at 366, 369-70), but the Appeals
Council found that there was no good cause to reopen Malone’s 2002
unfavorable determination, (id. at 361-64). The Appeals Council further
informed Malone that she did “not have the right to court review of the
[ALJ]’s denial of [her] request for reopening.” (Id. at 362.)
Malone commenced the present action by filing her complaint on
April 30, 2013 wherein she sought review of the Commissioner’s decision
not to reopen her prior application. (Compl.) The Commissioner filed an
answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (Dkt. Nos. 7,
8.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos.
10, 14.)
3

III. Contentions
Malone contends that her 2002 application for DIB should be
reopened because there was good cause for reopening, and because the
Commissioner’s decision not to reopen was not supported by substantial
evidence and was an abuse of discretion. (Dkt. No. 10 at 4-7; Dkt. No. 10,
Attach. 1 at 3.) The Commissioner counters that the denial of Malone’s
request to reopen her prior claim is not subject to judicial review, and that
the ALJ’s decision not to reopen is also supported by substantial evidence.
(Dkt. No. 14 at 2-5.)
IV. Facts
The court adopts the parties’ undisputed factual recitations. (Dkt. No.
10 at 2-4; Dkt. No. 14 at 1-2.)
V. Standard of Review
The standard for reviewing the Commissioner’s final decision under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is well established and will not be repeated here. For a
full discussion of the standard and the five-step process by which the
Commissioner evaluates whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, the
court refers the parties to its previous decision in Christiana v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:05-CV-932, 2008 WL 759076, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y.
4

Mar. 19, 2008).
VI. Discussion
Malone argues several bases for good cause to reopen her prior
request for DIB, and asserts that “the Commissioner’s decision to not
reopen the previous determination is not supported by substantial
evidence.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 4-7.) However, as explained below, this court is
without jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to this administrative decision.
Generally, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review an administrative
decision not to reopen a previous claim for benefits. See Califano v.
Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09 (1977) (“[§ 405(g)] cannot be read to
authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing
to reopen claims for social security benefits.”). The Second Circuit has
noted that there are two exceptions to this general rule: federal courts may
review the Commissioner’s decision not to reopen a prior determination
only “where the Commissioner has constructively reopened the case” or
“where the claimant has been denied due process.” Byam v. Barnhart, 336
F.3d 172, 180 (2d Cir. 2003). A decision will be deemed to have been
constructively reopened “[i]f the Commissioner ‘reviews the entire record
and renders a decision on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Malave v. Sullivan, 777
5

F. Supp. 247, 251-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). “Due process violations occur
when a claimant does not receive meaningful notice [or] an opportunity to
be heard.” Bessette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 09-CV-735, 2010 WL
5677184, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
In this case, neither exception applies to the requests Malone made
to have her first application reopened. First, Malone does not contend, nor
does the record support the conclusion, that the ALJ constructively
reopened Malone’s prior application. Here, the ALJ simply determined, in
response to Malone’s request to reopen, that there were “no grounds for
re-opening the prior determination.” (Tr. at 374.) There is no evidence that
he examined the merits of, and thus constructively reopened, her prior
application. See Byam, 336 F.3d at 180. Furthermore, Malone makes no
constitutional claims whatsoever of a denial of due process, and the record
does not suggest that she would be successful had she pressed such an
argument. See Bessette, 2010 WL 5677184, at *5-6. As such, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s decision to not reopen
Malone’s prior application, and her complaint is dismissed. See Philpot v.
Colvin, No. 5:12-CV-291, 2014 WL 1312147, at *26 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31,
6

2014).
VII. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Malone’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 27, 2014
Albany, New York

7