[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57687-57689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 99-4 (11)]
Bloodsworth v. Heckler; Judicial Review of an Appeals Council
Dismissal of a Request for Review of an Administrative Law Judge
Decision--Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of a revision to Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling 92-4(11) by issuing Social Security Acquiescence
Ruling 99-4 (11).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wanda D. Mason, Litigation Staff,
Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD
21235, (410) 966-5044.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are rescinding Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling 92-4(11) and publishing this revised Acquiescence
Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2).
A Social Security Acquiescence Ruling explains how we will apply a
holding in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we
determine conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the Act
or regulations when the Government has decided not to seek further
review of that decision or is unsuccessful on further review.
[[Page 57688]]
On April 8, 1992, we published Acquiescence Ruling 92-4(11) in the
Federal Register (57 FR 11961) to reflect the holding in Bloodsworth v.
Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983). The Acquiescence Ruling
applied to Appeals Council dismissals of requests for review of
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions. The Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit held that an Appeals Council dismissal of a request
for review of an ALJ decision for reasons of untimeliness is a ``final
decision of the Secretary made after a hearing'' within the meaning of
section 205(g) of the Social Security Act and, therefore, subject to
judicial review.
The Ruling's section entitled ``Statement As To How Bloodsworth
Differs From Social Security Policy'' included a parenthetical
statement that an ``Appeals Council grant of request or denial of
request for review of an ALJ decision is judicially reviewable.'' That
statement is incorrect and is inconsistent with the regulations that it
purports to explain, 20 CFR 404.955, 416.1455 and 422.210. The
parenthetical statement also is inconsistent with the regulations at 20
CFR 404.981 and 416.1481. Moreover, it was not the issue addressed by
the Acquiescence Ruling and was not the subject of the Eleventh
Circuit's decision.
For purposes of clarity and consistency with our regulations, we
are rescinding AR 92-4 (11) and revising the Acquiescence Ruling by
deleting this parenthetical statement. We also have made several minor
editorial and technical changes to update and clarify the Ruling. These
revisions are technical corrections only and do not involve any
substantive changes to the Bloodsworth Acquiescence Ruling. Some minor
language changes are also being made for improved readability.
We will apply the holding of the Court of Appeals' decision as
explained in this revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to
Appeals Council dismissals of requests for review of ALJ decisions for
claimants who reside within the states in the Eleventh Circuit at the
time of the Appeals Council's dismissal of the request for review. This
revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all Appeals
Council dismissals of ALJ decisions made on or after October 26, 1999,
except if relief and/or review has been granted pursuant to the
previously issued Acquiescence Ruling 92-4 (11) which was published on
April 8, 1992. If we made a determination or decision on your
application for benefits between April 25, 1983, the date of the Court
of Appeals' decision, and October 26, 1999, the effective date of this
revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling, you may request
application of this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to your claim
if you first demonstrate, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) or
416.1485(b)(2), that application of the Acquiescence Ruling could
change our prior determination or decision.
If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as
obsolete, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that
effect, as provided in 20 CFR 404.985(e), or 416.1485(e). If we decide
to relitigate the issue covered by this Social Security Acquiescence
Ruling as provided for by 20 CFR 404.985(c) or 416.1485(c), we will
publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that we will apply our
interpretation of the Act or regulations involved. We will also explain
why we have decided to relitigate the issue.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001 Social
Security - Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security - Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security - Survivor's Insurance; 96.003 -
Special Benefits for Persons Aged 72 and Over; 96.006 - Supplemental
Security Income.)
Dated: September 2, 1999.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Acquiescence Ruling 99-4 (11)
Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)--Judicial
Review of an Appeals Council Dismissal of a Request for Review of an
Administrative Law Judge Decision--Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act.
Issue: Whether a dismissal by the Appeals Council of a request for
review of an ALJ decision is a ``final decision'' which is judicially
reviewable.
Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation: Sections 205(g) and (h) and
1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. sections 405(g) and
(h) and 1383(c)(3)); 20 CFR 404.955, 404.967, 404.968, 404.971,
404.972, 404.981, 404.982, 416.1455, 416.1467, 416.1468, 416.1471,
416.1472, 416.1481, 416.1482 and 422.210.
Circuit: Eleventh (Alabama, Florida, Georgia).
Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)
Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling applies only to the Appeals
Council dismissals of requests for review of ALJ decisions.
Description of Case: In 1979, Mr. Jack Bloodsworth, the claimant in
this case, filed applications for a period of disability, disability
insurance benefits, and supplemental security income payments. The
applications were denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an ALJ
after a hearing. The claimant missed the 60-day time limit for filing
his request for review of the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council
because it was filed approximately two weeks after the deadline.
Therefore, the Appeals Council dismissed the request for review on the
basis of untimeliness without good cause.
The claimant then filed a complaint in Federal district court,
alleging that denial of the extension of time to file was not supported
by substantial evidence. The district court rejected the Social
Security Administration's (SSA) argument that it lacked jurisdiction,
reviewed the Appeals Council's denial of an extension of time, and
remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the claim.
1 On remand, the Appeals Council restated its position that
the claimant's request for review was untimely filed, but considered
the claim on the merits as ordered, and denied the claimant's request
for review. The district court affirmed the decision and the claimant
appealed. On appeal, SSA again argued that the district court lacked
jurisdiction.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Social Security Independence and Program
Improvements Act of 1994, Pub.L.No. 103-296, effective March 31,
1995, Social Security Administration (SSA) became an independent
Agency in the Executive Branch of the United States Government and
was provided ultimate responsibility for administering the Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income programs under titles II
and XVI of the Act. Prior to March 31, 1995, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services had such responsibility.
\2\ The Government argued that the district court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction under sections 205(g) and (h) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 405(g) and (h)) because the
plaintiff failed to meet the ``final decision'' and ``made after a
hearing'' requirements of these sections. The Government contended
that: (1) Dismissal of a request for review on the basis of
untimeliness without ``good cause'' is not a ``final decision'' for
it does not constitute a determination on the merits; and (2) it is
not ``made after a hearing'' because no hearing is granted solely
and specifically on the request for review itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holding: The Eleventh Circuit held that an Appeals Council
dismissal of a request for review of an ALJ decision for reasons of
untimeliness is a ``final decision of the Secretary made after a
hearing'' within the meaning of section 205(g) of the Social Security
Act3 and, therefore, subject to judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. section
405(g)) currently provides in pertinent part that ``[a]ny
individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security made after a hearing to which he was a party,* * * may
obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within
sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or
within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may
allow.'' At the time of the decision in Bloodsworth, however, the
statute referred to a ``final decision of the Secretary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57689]]
Regarding the right to judicial review, the Eleventh Circuit stated
that neither the statute nor the regulations make any distinction
between Appeals Council dismissals and ``determinations on the
merits.'' The court found that both actions are equally final and that
both trigger a right to review by the district court. The court
interpreted 20 CFR 404.972 and 404.9814 to provide that ``an
Appeals Council review determination, on whatever grounds, is perceived
as the appropriately `final decision' from which to take an appeal to
the district court under section 405(g).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 20 CFR 404.981 and 416.1481 state, in pertinent part, that
``[t]he Appeals Council's decision, or the decision of the
administrative law judge if the request for review is denied, is
binding unless you or another party file an action in Federal
district court, or the decision is revised.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement as to How Bloodsworth Differs From SSA's Interpretation of
the Regulations
The Eleventh Circuit held that an Appeals Council dismissal of a
request for review of an ALJ decision is a ``final decision of the
Secretary made after a hearing'' (now a ``final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security'') within the meaning of section 205(g)
of the Social Security Act and, therefore, subject to judicial
review.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As the Supreme Court has noted, the term ``final decision''
is not defined in the Social Security Act, but the Act gives
authority to the agency to prescribe its meaning by regulation.
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to the holding of the court in Bloodsworth, SSA policy is
that the regulations make a clear distinction in regard to rights of
judicial review between dismissals and determinations on the merits by
the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council may take three types of action
following an ALJ decision:
(1) It may grant a request for review;
(2) it may deny a request for review; or
(3) it may dismiss a request for review. The dismissal of a request
for review of an ALJ decision is binding and not subject to further
review. 20 CFR 404.972, 416.1472. See also 20 CFR 404.955, 416.1455,
422.210. The Appeals Council will dismiss a request for review if it is
untimely filed and the time for filing has not been
extended.6 The Appeals Council may also dismiss a request
for review for other prescribed reasons. 20 CFR 404.971, 416.1471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Appeals Council, upon good cause shown, may extend the
time for filing a request for review of an ALJ decision. 20 CFR
404.968(b), 416.1468(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSA's position, based on the above-cited regulations, is that an
Appeals Council dismissal is not a ``final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security made after a hearing.'' Therefore, such a dismissal
is not judicially reviewable under section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(g)).
Explanation of How SSA Will Apply The Bloodsworth Decision Within the
Circuit
This Ruling applies only to cases involving claimants who reside in
Alabama, Florida, or Georgia at the time of the Appeals Council
dismissal of the request for review.
Notices sent by the Appeals Council which dismiss requests for
review of ALJ decisions will advise claimants in these states of their
right to request judicial review.
[FR Doc. 99-27843 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-F
