Freels v. Califano

E.D. Tennessee

Freels v. Califano

474 F. Supp. 621, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11664

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedJune 18, 1979

DocketCiv. No. 3-79-181

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 474 F. Supp. 621 (Freels v. Califano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freels v. Califano, 474 F. Supp. 621, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11664 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

This is an action to review the denial of benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Under these provisions, review of a denial of benefits may be obtained “after any final decision of the Secretary . . . by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing [to the claimant] of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).¹

In this case, the Hearing Examiner denied benefits to the plaintiff on August 21, 1978. That decision became the final decision of the Secretary when the Appeals [622]*622Council declined to review it on January 29, 1979. On the same day, notice of this decision as well as notice of the time limit for commencement of an action in district court was mailed to claimant. No extension of time was ever requested, nor was one ever grantee^ by the Secretary. The present action was filed April 20, 1979, more than sixty days after the mailing of notice of the final decision of the Secretary. The Secretary has moved to dismiss the action as untimely filed.

Counsel for plaintiff admits that the statutory time limit has not been complied with and asks the Court to grant relief. Counsel says that the failure to file was due to inadvertence.

The sixty day limit for judicial review of administrative action under the Act is a jurisdictional limitation. See Whipp v. Weinberger, 505 F.2d 800, 801 (6th Cir. 1974). Timely filing is an absolute precondition which this Court lacks the power to waive. See Bomer v. Ribicoff, 304 F.2d 427, 429 (6th Cir. 1962). Only the Secretary may extend the time for filing and that has not been done in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, granted, and that this case be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

Order accordingly.

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

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

This is an action to review the denial of benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Under these provisions, review of a denial of benefits may be obtained “after any final decision of the Secretary . . . by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing [to the claimant] of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).¹

In this case, the Hearing Examiner denied benefits to the plaintiff on August 21, 1978. That decision became the final decision of the Secretary when the Appeals [622]*622Council declined to review it on January 29, 1979. On the same day, notice of this decision as well as notice of the time limit for commencement of an action in district court was mailed to claimant. No extension of time was ever requested, nor was one ever grantee^ by the Secretary. The present action was filed April 20, 1979, more than sixty days after the mailing of notice of the final decision of the Secretary. The Secretary has moved to dismiss the action as untimely filed.

Counsel for plaintiff admits that the statutory time limit has not been complied with and asks the Court to grant relief. Counsel says that the failure to file was due to inadvertence.

The sixty day limit for judicial review of administrative action under the Act is a jurisdictional limitation. See Whipp v. Weinberger, 505 F.2d 800, 801 (6th Cir. 1974). Timely filing is an absolute precondition which this Court lacks the power to waive. See Bomer v. Ribicoff, 304 F.2d 427, 429 (6th Cir. 1962). Only the Secretary may extend the time for filing and that has not been done in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, granted, and that this case be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

Order accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. Supp. 621, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freels-v-califano-tned-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack