Correia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
23
Opinion and Order. Signed on 4/19/18 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (jy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
GREGORY M. CORREIA,
Plaintiff,
3:17-cv-00729-BR
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,1
Defendant.
JOHN E. HAAPALA, JR.
401 E. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 345-8474
Attorney for Plaintiff
1
The official title of the head of the Social Security
Administration (SSA) is the “Commissioner of Social Security.”
42 U.S.C. § 902(a)(1). A “public officer who sues or is sued in
an official capacity may be designated by official title rather
than by name.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(d). This Court, therefore,
refers to Defendant only as Commissioner of Social Security.
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
BILLY J. WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
RENATA GOWIE
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
(503) 727-1003
MICHAEL W. PILE
Acting Regional Chief Counsel
ERIN F. HIGHLAND
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2900, M/S 221A
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 615-2495
Attorneys for Defendant
BROWN, Senior Judge.
Plaintiff Gregory M. Correia seeks judicial review of
the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (SSA) in which the Commissioner denied Plaintiff's
application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title
II of the Social Security Act.
For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES this action
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
I.
Prior Administrative History
Plaintiff protectively filed his initial application for DIB
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
benefits on December 20, 2010.
Tr. 16, 145.2
a disability onset date of November 28, 2006.
Plaintiff alleged
Plaintiff’s
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
An
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on March 15, 2013.
Tr. 30-61.
Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE) testified.
Plaintiff was represented by an attorney at the hearing.
On May 1, 2013, the ALJ issued an opinion in which she found
Plaintiff is not disabled and, therefore, is not entitled to
benefits.
Tr. 16-24.
On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff requested
review by the Appeals Council of that determination.
Tr. 12.
On
February 10, 2014, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request
to review the ALJ’s decision, and the ALJ’s decision became the
final decision of the Commissioner.
Tr. 1-3.
See Sims v. Apfel,
530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000).
On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court
for review of the Commissioner’s decision.
On April 20, 2015, this court (Judge Malcolm F. Marsh)
reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for
further administrative proceedings.
II.
Tr. 401-28.
Current Administrative History
On June 30, 2015, following remand by this Court, the
Appeals Council vacated the decision of the Commissioner and
2
Citations to the official transcript of record filed by
the Commissioner on October 12, 2017, are referred to as "Tr."
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
remanded this case to the ALJ for further proceedings.
Tr. 432.
On August 13, 2016, the ALJ held further proceedings on
Plaintiff’s application.
testified.
Tr. 340-69.
Plaintiff and a VE
Plaintiff was represented by an attorney at the
hearing.
On March 29, 2017, the ALJ issued an opinion in which she
again found Plaintiff is not disabled and, therefore, is not
entitled to benefits.
Tr. 323-33.
Plaintiff did not appeal the
ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council.
On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court
seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision.
On March 15, 2018, the Court issued an Order (#18) directing
the parties to file a joint status report no later than March 23,
2018, as to whether “this Court has jurisdiction to review the
ALJ’s decision” and to cite authorities and evidence in the
record to support their positions.
On March 20, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Status Report
(#22) in which they acknowledge Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed
while the Appeals Council still had jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a)(5).
The parties, however,
take the position that “despite the [C]omplaint being filed prior
to the expiration of sixty days, since no exception was taken to
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
the filing of that [C]omplaint, [] jurisdiction vested in this
court on the sixty-first day after the decision, on May 27,
2017.”
STANDARDS
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are
not empowered to hear every dispute presented by litigants.
See
A-Z Int’l v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003)("It is
fundamental to our system of government that a court of the
United States may not grant relief absent a constitutional or
valid statutory grant of jurisdiction.
A federal court is
presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the
contrary affirmatively appears.")(quotations omitted)).
"[District courts] are courts of limited jurisdiction.
They
possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Serv., Inc., 544 U.S. 280, 289
(2005).
In Social Security cases the Court has jurisdiction to
review the “final decision” of the Commissioner of Social
Security.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The decision of the Commissioner
becomes a “final decision” when the Appeals Council issues a
decision on review or denies review.
404.981.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.955,
See also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000).
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
In other words, a claimant must obtain a final decision, which
requires a claimant to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1993).
See also
Lopes v. Astrue, 277 F. App’x 757, 760 (9th Cir. 2008).
DISCUSSION
As noted, the district court remanded this matter on
April 20, 2015, for further administrative proceedings.
When a
federal court remands a case for further consideration, the
Appeals Council may make a decision or may remand the case to an
ALJ for determination.
20 C.F.R. § 404.983.
On June 30, 2015, the Appeals Council vacated the "prior
decision" and remanded the case to the ALJ for further hearing
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.977.
held a hearing on remand.
On August 13, 2016, the ALJ
On March 29, 2017, the ALJ issued her
decision and again found Plaintiff is not disabled and is not
entitled to benefits.
When the ALJ issues a decision on remand,
the claimant may file exceptions to the ALJ’s decision within 30
days (i.e., appeal the ALJ's decision).
20 C.F.R. § 404.984(b).
Even if the claimant does not appeal the ALJ's decision, the
Appeals Council may assume jurisdiction of the matter within 60
days of the ALJ’s decision.
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
20 C.F.R. § 404.984(c).
In this case the parties concede Plaintiff did not file
exceptions to the ALJ’s decision within 30 days and the Appeals
Council did not assume jurisdiction within 60 days.
When a
claimant does not file exceptions to the ALJ’s decision and the
Appeals Council does not assume jurisdiction, the ALJ’s decision
becomes the “final decision” sixty days from the ALJ’s decision.
20 C.F.R. § 404.985(d).
Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision did not
become the “final decision” of the Commissioner until May 29,
2017.3
As noted, Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed May 6, 2017, which
is prior to the date the decision by the Commissioner became a
“final decision.”
Although the parties do not challenge this Court’s authority
to resolve their dispute, this Court must determine whether it
has subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits of
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 680 (9th
Cir. 2017)(citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523
U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998)).
The Court presumes it lacks jurisdiction
unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342, n.3 (2006).
3
Although the parties state in their Joint Status Report
that jurisdiction vested in this Court on May 27, 2017, the 60
days for the Appeals Council to assume jurisdiction of this
matter actually expired on May 29, 2017.
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
On this record the Court concludes the Commissioner’s
decision was not “final” and the Court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction at the time that Plaintiff filed his
Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2018.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States Senior District Judge
8 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?