Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gorgas v. Astrue

May 3, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Nora Barry Fischer



This action involves a Social Security claimant's challenge to the Commissioner's dismissal of his claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") based on administrative res judicata. Presently before the Court is Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security's*fn1 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Christopher P. Gorgas' Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Docket No. 10) and Plaintiff's response thereto (Docket No. 17). In his motion, the Commissioner argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint because the Commissioner did not issue a "final decision" denying DIB in Plaintiff's case, but issued a dismissal order without holding a hearing as to his claim. (Docket Nos. 10, 11). Plaintiff maintains that the dismissal on res judicata grounds is reviewable by this Court. (Docket No. 17). Upon consideration of the parties' positions, and for the following reasons, Defendant's Motion [10] is granted and this matter is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


Plaintiff's insured status expired on December 31, 2000 and he is not eligible to receive DIB for any period after that date. (Docket No. 11-1 at 3, ¶ 4(a), 5). He has filed multiple applications for DIB for the period immediately prior to the expiration of his insured status, but each of his applications were denied. His first application was filed on September 14, 1998 and was denied on December 1, 1998, without further appeal. (Id. at 9). A second application was made on April 1, 1999, alleging disability since April 30, 1994. (Id. at 6-8). This application was denied at the initial level, and, after a hearing was held, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") denied his application in a decision dated April 20, 2000. (Id. at 6-14). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's timely request for review of this decision on October 15, 2001. (Id. at 15-6). Plaintiff filed a third application with a protective filing date of June 22, 2002. (Id. at 17-9). This application was denied on March 17, 2003, and the decision notified Plaintiff that he was not found to be disabled on any date through his date last insured, December 31, 2000. (Id. at 20-3). Plaintiff did not appeal this decision. (Id. at 3, ¶ 4(c)).

Plaintiff filed the present application for DIB on March 1, 2007, alleging disability beginning April 27, 2000. (Id. at 24- 27). His application was denied initially on April 25, 2007 and Plaintiff was notified that his condition was not considered disabling on any date through his date last insured, December 31, 2000. (Id.). Plaintiff requested a hearing on April 30, 2007. (Id. at 28-31). His request for a hearing was denied and his application was dismissed in an Order of Dismissal dated July 2, 2008. (Id.). The ALJ reasoned that the doctrine of res judicata under 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1) applied to bar Plaintiff's DIB claim and that none of the conditions for reopening his prior case under 20 C.F.R. § 404.988 were present. (Id. at 30-1). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not presented any "new and material evidence" concerning the relevant period, April 27, 2000 through December 31, 2000, that there had been no substantive changes in the law which would affect his case, and that the doctrine of res judicata was properly applied to bar the present application. (Id.).

The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review of the July 2, 2008 decision on July 30, 2009. (Id. at 32-3). Plaintiff then initiated this civil action by filing his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his Complaint on October 2, 2009. (Docket No. 1). His motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on October 6, 2009. (Docket No. 2). After paying the applicable filing fee, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 23, 2009. (Docket No. 6).

The Commissioner responded to Plaintiff's Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on February 5, 2010. (Docket Nos. 10, 11). In support of his motion, the Commissioner also filed a declaration of Paul Halse, Acting Chief of Court Case Preparation and Review Branch 2 of the Office of Appellate Operations, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Social Security Administration, as well as portions of the administrative record including many of the unfavorable decisions issued regarding Plaintiff's applications. (Docket No. 11-1). After receiving two extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his response to the Commissioner's Motion on April 6, 2010. (Docket No. 17). No further briefing has been received. Accordingly, the motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.


A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims. See FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1). "At issue in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is the court's 'very power to hear the case.'" Petruska v. Gannon University, 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2006)(quoting Mortenson v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977)). As he is the party asserting jurisdiction, Plaintiff "bears the burden of showing that [his] claims are properly before the district court." Development Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Housing & Health Care, 54 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir.1995); see also Kehr Packages, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)("[w]hen subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion"). In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court must distinguish between facial attacks and factual attacks. Petruska, 462 F.3d at 302. When a defendant launches a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, as the Commissioner has done here, "no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims." Petruska, 462 F.3d at 302 (quoting Mortenson, 549 F.2d at 891). In a factual attack, the court must weigh the evidence relating to jurisdiction, with discretion to allow affidavits, documents, and even limited evidentiary hearings.*fn2 United States ex rel. Atkinson v. Pa. Shipbuilding Co., 473 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir.2007).


"Federal court jurisdiction is expressly limited by § 205 of the Social Security Act." Tobak v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 183, 186 (3d Cir. 1999)(citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (h)). Pursuant to § 205(h), "[n]o findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided." 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). Further, § 205(g) provides 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" in federal district court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thus, jurisdiction is generally limited to final decisions made by the Commissioner after a hearing and "[i]t is well settled that federal courts lack jurisdiction under § 205 to review the Commissioner's discretionary decision to decline to reopen a prior application or to deny a subsequent application on res judicata grounds." Tobak, 195 F.3d at 187 (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-08 (1977); Stauffer v. Califano, 693 F.2d 306, 307 (3d Cir. 1982)). But, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to review whether res judicata was properly applied or whether a prior application was actually or constructively reopened by the Commissioner.*fn3 Tobak, 195 F.3d at 187-88.

If applicable, res judicata can be invoked by the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1) in order to prevent a claimant from filing successive applications for Social Security benefits. See Rucker v. Chater, 92 F.3d 492, 494 (7th Cir. 1996)("section 405(h) and other regulatory provisions embody the fundamental and familiar principles of res judicata."). Administrative res judicata is appropriate and a request by a claimant for a hearing before an ALJ may be denied if the ALJ finds that the Commissioner has "made a previous determination or decision... about [a claimant's] rights on the same facts and on the same issue or issues, and this previous determination or decision has become final by either administrative or judicial action." 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1); see also Tobak, 195 F.3d at 186 ( "res judicata may only be properly applied to preclude a subsequent claim for disability benefits where the 'same' claimant has filed a previous application based on the 'same' issues and where such prior determination has become final by virtue of administrative or judicial action."); Purter v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 682, 691 (3d Cir. 1985). Further, a final decision may be reopened by the Commissioner within twelve months "for any reason" or within four years if "good cause" is shown by the claimant, including for, among other reasons not pertinent here, a claimant's furnishing of "new and material evidence." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.988, 404.989.

In this case, the Commissioner issued a final decision as to Plaintiff's DIB claim on March 17, 2003, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled for any period prior to his date last insured, December 31, 2000. (Docket No. 11-1 at 20-3). Plaintiff's subsequent application sought DIB for the period of April 27, 2000 through December 31, 2000. (Id. at 24-31). The Commissioner denied his subsequent application for DIB and the ALJ denied his request for a hearing, finding that res judicata barred his DIB claim and that Plaintiff did not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.