Case No. 17-606 | 6th Cir.
Preview by Boseul (Jenny) Jeong, Online Editor
Petitioner’s request for review of an administrative law judge’s decision to deny his application for disability benefits was not received by the Social Security Administration on time and his attorney could not provide any evidence that the request was sent timely. The Appeals Council dismissed the appeal accordingly. When the petitioner filed a civil suit seeking review of the Appeals Council’s decision, the district court dismissed the case because (1) the decision was not a “final decision” that is reviewable, and (2) no other constitutional claim was made to allow review of the otherwise nonreviewable claim. In the brief to the Supreme Court, Petitioner only addressed the question of whether there was a “final decision.”
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision, holding, in relevant part, that the Appeals Council’s decision here was not a “final decision” that is subject to judicial review under the Social Security Act and regulations. The court cited similar cases such as Hilmes v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 983 F.2d 67, 68 (6th Cir. 1993), which held that “the dismissal of a hearing request as untimely was unreviewable.” Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 813, 816 (6th Cir. 2018).
In his brief to the Supreme Court, the petitioner emphasized the importance of judicial review to prevent agencies’ arbitrary decisions and the Court’s “‘strong presumption’ favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Brief for Petitioner at 17, Smith v. Berryhill, No. 17-1606 (U.S. filed Dec. 19, 2018) (quoting Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S.Ct. 1645, 1653 (2015)). Petitioner focused on the language of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) that provides judicial review for “any” final decision and pressed the point that there is no other way for him to appeal after the decision.
Respondent changed her position from the previous proceedings, where she had asked the Sixth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision that the Appeals Council’s action was not a “final decision.” Now, Respondent is suggesting that the precedents were wrong to hold an Appeals Council dismissal to be nonreviewable. Respondent pointed out similar facts as Petitioner did, concluding that this decision is significant to determining an individual’s right. That the Appeals Council’s decision was not about the merits of the claim also did not matter to Respondent. Instead, Respondent argues the scope of judicial review is limited in this type of case to whether the agency’s decision on a procedural matter was supported by “substantial evidence.” Brief for the Respondent at 29, 30, Smith v. Berryhill, No. 17-1606 (U.S. filed Dec. 19, 2018) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).
It will be interesting to see not only how the Court will rule, but also the reasoning of the decision in light of longstanding precedents and the change in the respondent’s position.