[17-1606] Smith v. Berryhill

Smith v. Berryhill

Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Mar 18, 2019.
Decided on May 28, 2019.

Petitioner: Ricky Lee Smith.
Respondent: Nancy A. Berryhill.

Advocates:

• Michael B. Kimberly (for the petitioner)
• Michael R. Huston (Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of reversal and remand)
• Deepak Gupta (Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 1987, Ricky Lee Smith filed an application for supplemental security income (SSI) resulting from disability. The following year, an administrative law judge (ALJ) approved his application, and Smith received benefits until 2004, when he was found to be over the resource limit.

Smith filed another application for SSI in August 2012, alleging additional medical conditions as a result of his original disability. The claim was initial denied, and denied again upon reconsideration.

Smith filed a timely request for a hearing before an ALJ, and after the hearing, an ALJ denied Smith’s claim on March 26, 2014. Smith claims to have mailed a written request for review before the Appeals Council on April 24, 2014, and followed up by fax on September 21, 2014. A claims representative spoke with Smith on October 1, 2014, to inform him that his request may not have been received and that his request was filed as of that day, October 1, 2014.

The Appeals Council dismissed the request for review as untimely, as Smith proffered no evidence showing the request for was sent within the appropriate time. Smith filed a civil action seeking review of the Appeals Council’s dismissal. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim because the Appeals Council’s dismissal did not constitute a final decision subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Question

Is the decision of the Appeals Council dismissing a disability claim on the grounds that it is untimely constitute a “final decision” subject to judicial review under the Social Security Act?

Conclusion

A decision of the Appeals Counsel dismissing a disability claim on timeliness grounds is a “final decision” for purposes of determining whether judicial review is available. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

The plain language of the statute supports the interpretation that dismissal for untimeliness is a “final decision” because such a dismissal is a terminal event. Moreover, that interpretation finds support in the greater statutory context because the dismissal is an agency action that determines the rights and obligations of the parties, which, in most administrative law contexts, is the event that triggers judicial review.