Delmar INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee

Sixth Circuit

Delmar INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee

830 F.2d 67, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12995, 19 Soc. Serv. Rev. 103

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 1987

Docket86-1705

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 830 F.2d 67 (Delmar INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delmar INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, 830 F.2d 67, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12995, 19 Soc. Serv. Rev. 103 (6th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Secretary. The order had the effect of upholding a decision of the Secretary denying plaintiff’s request to re-open an earlier application, in order to extend the period over which benefits awarded him on his later application would be given retroactive effect.

The Supreme Court has noted that federal courts are without jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary refusing to reopen previously adjudicated claims, at least in the absence of a constitutional challenge. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). Simply couching in constitutional language what is in reality an argument, that the Secretary abused his discretion in refusing to re-open a claim, does not convert the argument into a colorable constitutional challenge. Gos *68 nell v. Secretary, 703 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1983).

Because we conclude that the Secretary did refuse to re-open the previous application, and that plaintiff has failed to raise a colorable constitutional challenge, the Secretary’s decision is not reviewable.

In addition, plaintiff is precluded from raising here, for the first time, his argument that he is raising a colorable constitutional challenge.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affimed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Secretary. The order had the effect of upholding a decision of the Secretary denying plaintiff’s request to re-open an earlier application, in order to extend the period over which benefits awarded him on his later application would be given retroactive effect.

The Supreme Court has noted that federal courts are without jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary refusing to reopen previously adjudicated claims, at least in the absence of a constitutional challenge. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). Simply couching in constitutional language what is in reality an argument, that the Secretary abused his discretion in refusing to re-open a claim, does not convert the argument into a colorable constitutional challenge. Gos *68 nell v. Secretary, 703 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1983).

Because we conclude that the Secretary did refuse to re-open the previous application, and that plaintiff has failed to raise a colorable constitutional challenge, the Secretary’s decision is not reviewable.

In addition, plaintiff is precluded from raising here, for the first time, his argument that he is raising a colorable constitutional challenge.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

830 F.2d 67, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12995, 19 Soc. Serv. Rev. 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delmar-ingram-plaintiff-appellant-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-ca6-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack