Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

LEROY A. SARGENT, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,1 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No. 06-122-P-C

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION

The plaintiff in this Social Security Disability ("SSD") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") case appeals from the decision of an administrative law judge not to reopen his earlier application for benefits. The defendant has moved to dismiss the case, alleging that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. I recommend that the court grant the motion to dismiss, and, for that reason, remove the case from tomorrow's oral argument calendar to which it had previously been assigned. The plaintiff filed an application for SSD and SSI benefits on September 13, 2001, that was denied by an administrative law judge on February 5, 2003. Record at 21. On April 23, 2003, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review of that decision. Id. The plaintiff took no further action on that application. Id. The current application for benefits was filed on February 19, 2003. Id. at 20. The administrative law judge in this case awarded the plaintiff benefits effective February 6, 2003. Id. at 27. He

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1), I have substituted new Commissioner of Social Security Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this matter.

1

also held that the decision denying the previous claim "is final and binding, and the claimant has failed to establish good cause to reopen the denials of those applications." Id. at 26. The plaintiff asked the Appeals Council to review this portion of the decision, id. at 704, and the Appeals Council declined to do so, advising the plaintiff: "Under our rules, you do not have the right to court review of the Administrative Law Judge's denial of your request for reopening," id. at 12. The plaintiff nonetheless filed this action seeking review of the denial of his request for reopening. In Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977), the Supreme Court held that, under 42 U.S.C.

Download DMC_03212007_2-06cv122_Sargent_v_Astrue.pdf

Maine Law