United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LINDA
K. CARACAPPA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Martina Candida Schlacter brought this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying plaintiff's
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and
Local Rule 72.1, consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a
Magistrate Judge has been established.
Presently
before this court is the Commissioner's motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Commissioner
moves to dismiss the instant litigation arguing that this
court is without subject matter jurisdiction due to
plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative
remedies, resulting in there being no “final decision
after a hearing.” See Motion to Dismiss,
8/27/19. For the reasons that follow, the Commissioner's
motion to dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is
DISMISSED.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On
September 29, 2016, the Social Security Administration
informed plaintiff that her supplemental security income
would cease. See Motion to Dismiss, Ex.1 of
Declaration for Janay Podraza (Podraza Decl.). The Social
Security Administration notice explained that, to be eligible
for supplemental security income, plaintiff's resources
must less than the three-thousand-dollar resource limit for a
married couple living together. See id. at 6. The
notice further indicated that plaintiff had checking and
savings accounts totaling over seventeen-thousand-dollars,
which was over the three-thousand-dollar resource limit for a
married couple living together, rendering plaintiff
ineligible for supplemental security income. See id.
at 8.
Plaintiff
filed a request for review, which was denied on November 4,
2016. See Motion to Dismiss, Podraza Decl. at 3 and
Exs. 2 and 3 of Podraza Decl. The November 4, 2016 denial
letter informed plaintiff that receipt of the letter was
presumed within five (5) days of the date of the letter and
that plaintiff had the right to request a hearing with an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within sixty (60) days from
the receipt of the denial letter. See Motion to
Dismiss, Ex. 3 of Podraza Decl. Plaintiff had until January
9, 2017, to file a timely request for a
hearing.[2] Plaintiff filed an untimely request for a
hearing before an ALJ on January 30, 2017. See id.,
Ex. 4 of Podraza Decl. On June 22, 2017, the hearing office
informed plaintiff she had fifteen (15) days to provide
information of good cause showing the reasons plaintiff's
request for a hearing was untimely. See id., Ex. 5
of Podraza Decl. Plaintiff failed to provide a response to
the hearing office's request for information showing good
cause, thus, plaintiff's untimely January 30, 2017
request for a hearing with an ALJ was dismissed on July 21,
2017. See id., Ex. 6 of Podraza Decl.
On July
25, 2017, plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's
decision to dismiss plaintiff's request for a hearing as
untimely. See id., Ex. 7 of Podraza Decl. On January
11, 2019, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request
for review of the ALJ's July 21, 2017 dismissal. See
id., Ex. 8 of Podraza Decl.
On
March 11, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant action before
this court seeking judicial review of the administrative
proceedings. The Commissioner moved to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, arguing that the ALJ's order dismissing
plaintiff's request for a hearing as untimely was not a
“final decision” over which this court has
jurisdiction.
II.
DISCUSSION
It is
well-established that parties must “exhaust prescribed
administrative remedies before seeking relief from the
federal courts.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S.
140, 144-45 (1992). “The Social Security Act 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.” Sims
v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d
80 (2000) (emphasis added) (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
405(g)). The SSA regulations clarify that a claimant must
complete a four-step administrative review process in order
to obtain a “final decision” subject to judicial
review. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.900. The steps
begin with the initial determination, followed by a request
for reconsideration, a request for a hearing before an ALJ,
and a request for Appeals Council review. Id. §
404.900(a). If, after Appeals Council review, the claimant is
dissatisfied with the Administration's final decision, he
may request judicial review by filing a federal district
court action. Id. §§ 404.900(a); 404.981.
Failure to timely follow the appropriate steps results in the
loss of the right to judicial review. Id. §
404.900(b). “A ‘final decision' is a
particular type of agency action, and not all agency
determinations are final decisions.” Bacon v.
Sullivan, 969 F.2d 1517, 1519 (3d Cir. 1992) (emphasis
added).
The
declaration from Janay Podraza and the attached exhibits show
that the ALJ has not rendered a “final decision.”
The ALJ issuance of an order denying a request for a hearing,
finding only that plaintiff's request for a hearing was
untimely. The ALJ never ruled on the merits of
plaintiff's underlying claim. The ALJ's denial of a
request for review as untimely is not a “final
decision” within the meaning of the regulations.
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1453 (noting a
“decision of an [ALJ]” is issued via a written
decision which gives findings of fact, reasons for the
decision, and which must be based on the preponderance of the
evidence offered at the hearing or in the record.) There is
no indication that plaintiff exhausted his administrative
remedies. Therefore, plaintiff's complaint must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
AND
NOW, this 30th day of October, 2019, based upon
the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's
unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint is
GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED for lack of ...