Opinion
Civil Action No: SA-02-CA-0920-XR
October 7, 2003
ORDER
On this date the Court considered the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (docket number 22) in the above numbered and styled cause, and the Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation. After careful consideration, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overrules the Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 26), and Dismisses this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Standard of Review
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the District Court conducts a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Background
The Plaintiff filed an application for benefits on or about May 30, 1997, and that application was denied on September 24, 1997. Plaintiff did not seek review of or appeal that denial.
On or about August 13, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a protective application for supplemental security income benefits, alleging a disability onset date of January 1, 1989. On June 23, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing. Based on the testimony of a medical expert, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff had an impairment and was allowed to amend his disability onset date to October 28, 1997.
At the hearing, the Plaintiffs attorney asked if the approved amendment of plaintiffs onset date meant that plaintiff needed to reopen the prior unfavorable decision. The ALJ stated he would consider the Plaintiffs request to reopen the prior application, if necessary.
The ALJ ultimately determined that the Plaintiff was disabled from October 27, 1997, and awarded the plaintiff supplemental security income benefits as of the August 13, 1998 protective application.
Shortly after the ALJ's determination, the Plaintiff renewed his motion to reopen the prior application in order for the Plaintiff to receive benefits as of October 27, 1997. The ALJ never addressed Plaintiff s request to reopen the prior application. The Plaintiff requested review from the Appeals Council regarding the ALJ's failure to act upon the Plaintiffs motion to reopen. The Appeals Council denied the Plaintiffs request and stated that the now, final decision of the Commissioner was not entitled to judicial review pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.1403.
On September 17, 2002, the Plaintiff filed this suit. On May 12, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the ALJ failed to rule on the request to reopen the May 1997 application as required by HALLEX 1-20-901. Defendant responded that this Court lacked jurisdiction. On August 18, 2003, the United States Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation. She recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Analysis
20 C.F.R. § 416.1403(a)(5) states, in part, as follows:
(a) Administrative actions that are not initial determinations maybe reviewed by us, but they are not subject to the administrative review process provided by this subpart and they are not subject to judicial review. These actions include, but are not limited to, an action about . . . (5) Denial of a request to reopen a determination or a decision. . . .
In Torres v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 1995), the Plaintiff appealed the SSA's denial of his request for reconsideration and for a hearing. In affirming the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit noted that "federal court review of the Secretary's denial of a motion to reopen a claim lies only where a colorable constitutional question is at issue." Id. at 890. No constitutional claim is raised by Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff argues that he "does not request that this Court reopen the prior application or rule on the Appeal Council's denial of the plaintiffs request to reopen." Rather, he argues that because the ALJ failed to rule on his request to reopen allegedly in violation of HALLEX 1-2-901, he merely seeks "that this Court reverse and remand for proper development."
HALLEX 1-2-901 states, in relevant part, as follows:
If an ALJ is issuing a decision on a current application, and the record shows that in connection with the current application the claimant specifically requested reopening and revision of an unfavorable determination or decision on a prior application, the ALJ must include in the decision a finding on the reopening and revision issue, and supporting rationale.
If an ALJ is issuing a decision on a current application, and the record shows that in connection with the current application the claimant did not specifically request reopening and revision of the prior determination or decision, but did allege an onset date of disability within the previously adjudicated period, the ALJ must consider the claimant's current application to be an implied request for reopening and revision of the determination or decision on the prior application. Under these circumstances, if the ALJ's decision on the current application is unfavorable, the ALJ will not discuss or make any finding on the issues of reopening and revising the unfavorable determination or decision on the prior application. However, if the ALJ's decision on the current application is favorable, the ALJ must include in the decision appropriate findings and rationale on the reopening and revision issues.
HALLEX 1-2-901, 1993 WL 643069 (S.S.A.). The fact that the ALJ may have erred in not complying with HALLEX 1-2-901 does not, however, provide this Court with jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
It is Ordered that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 22) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), that Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 26) are DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.