Hyatt v. Bowen

118 F.R.D. 572, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12742, 1987 WL 35084
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedDecember 10, 1987
DocketCiv. A. No. C-C-83-655-M
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 118 F.R.D. 572 (Hyatt v. Bowen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hyatt v. Bowen, 118 F.R.D. 572, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12742, 1987 WL 35084 (W.D.N.C. 1987).

Opinion

ORDER IMPLEMENTING RELIEF TO CLASS

McMILLAN, District Judge.

This matter is again before the Court on an order of remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Hyatt, et al. v. Heckler1, 807 F.2d 376 (1986) and the Supreme Court of the United States Bowen v. Hyatt, et al., — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 79, 98 L.Ed.2d 41 (1987). The Fourth Circuit’s order overruled that part of its prior decision, Hyatt, et al. v. Heckler, 757 F.2d 1455 (1985), dismissing the claims of class members whose applications for disability benefits were denied but who failed to exhaust their administrative remedies or seek timely judicial review. Hyatt, 807 F.2d at 378. These persons, whose claims also meet the following class criteria from this Court’s March 27, 1984 order, are the subject of the present order: 2

A. The Martin and Myers Subclass
(1) All North Carolina residents who, since September 10, 1981, have applied for disability benefits (SSI or SSDI benefits) under the Social Security Act and whose claims were denied, either in an initial determination or another level of the administrative appeal procedure, because:
(a) the Secretary or DDS relied upon an absence or lack of end-organ damage, current or past, as determining that the claimant’s hypertension or diabetes melli-tus was not a severe impairment; or
(b) the Secretary or DDS relied upon an absence or lack of clinical findings as determining that the claimant’s pain was not disabling.

In compliance with the Fourth Circuit’s opinion and order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Relief. The Secretary shall reconsider under controlling Fourth Circuit precedent the claims of all class members as further described hereinafter. To identify properly and afford relief to all such class members, the Secretary shall take all steps set forth hereinafter.

2. First Notice, (a) Within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order, the Secretary shall identify on a list all potential class members entitled to receive the First Notice (Attachment A). The list of such persons must include at least all those [574]*574persons who have had any application for disability benefits denied on or after September 10, 1981, and before May 31, 1987 at or through any of the Secretary’s or his agent(s)’s offices in North Carolina. (The term “offices in North Carolina” for these purposes shall comprise both North Carolina offices and offices located outside North Carolina to the extent they service North Carolina residents). It is expected that this list will include more than 80,000 names, based on the Secretary’s own prior estimates. In designing the methods for identifying persons properly put on the First Notice list, the Secretary shall, if the possibility of error exists, err on the side of overinclusiveness.

(b) During the 45-day period specified above, the Secretary shall periodically inform plaintiff's counsel of the general approach the Secretary intends to use in identifying recipients of the First Notice. Within the 45-day period specified above, the Secretary shall serve on plaintiffs’ counsel both the First Notice list and all relevant information about how this list was assembled, including all relevant documents concerning the Secretary’s computer programs, checklists and other aspects of the Secretary’s effort to identify applicants entitled to receive the First Notice.

(c) The Secretary shall mail the First Notice to all persons identified on the First Notice list within 45 days after the service of the list on plaintiffs’ counsel (i.e., at the very latest, within 90 days after the entry of this Order).

(d) If, after reviewing the list and any portion of the documents made available by the Secretary, plaintiffs’ counsel deem it necessary to discuss the Secretary’s procedures in formulating the list with persons knowledgeable about them, the Secretary shall within 5 days after receiving such a request, make such knowledgeable persons available in Charlotte for discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel. If, after reviewing these identification programs, plaintiffs’ counsel have any dispute with the Secretary about the procedures he has used in making the First Notice list, plaintiffs’ counsel shall inform the Court, and the Court will resolve such dispute.

3. Notice Instructions. The Secretary shall send Attachment A, together with Attachment B as the First Notice to potential class members. As indicated on Attachment A, the notice shall include the telephone number and address of the local Legal Services office serving an individual class member’s last known address, in addition to the address and toll-free number of class counsel. In addition:

(a) The First Notices set forth in Attachment A shall be accompanied by Attachment B, which shall be a postage prepaid self-addressed postcard for return to the Secretary.
(b) The First Notice packages shall be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the potential class members’ last known address. If returned to the Secretary undelivered, or if lost, another identical notice shall be mailed by regular, first-class mail to the last known address with the words “Please Forward” clearly printed on the face of the envelope. If again returned undeliverable, the Secretary shall request from the North Carolina Department of Human Resources a last known address of the potential class member. If a different address is obtained the Secretary shall repeat the first mailing and (if necessary) the second mailing described above.
(c) All persons shall have 120 days from receipt of the full First Notice package to respond to the notice. The recipient may properly respond by mailing in Attachment B, by turning in Attachment B to any Social Security Office, or by otherwise indicating his or her interest in taking advantage of this relief to any representative of the Secretary, as specified in paragraph 4 below. If a person receives a First Notice and does not respond in timely fashion, he or she nevertheless shall be permitted to apply for class membership, but may be denied class status absent a finding of “good cause” as defined in the Program Operations Manual System (POMS). Presumptive good cause determinations shall be afforded persons with mental impair[575]*575ments. Denials of class membership for untimely filing shall be reviewable to the same extent as provided by Paragraph 5(c) below.
(d) In addition to providing individual notice to potential class members, the Secretary is further ordered to publicize this decision by means of: public service announcements on radio stations and television stations throughout North Carolina; posters in all Social Security offices, Offices of Hearings and Appeals that service North Carolina claimants, and the North Carolina Departments of Social Services; and press releases to newspapers throughout North Carolina. In addition, posters shall be placed in the emergency rooms of all hospitals in North Carolina. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall approve the content of all public service announcements, posters and press releases.

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

Related

In re International Oil Trading Co.
548 B.R. 825 (S.D. Florida, 2016)
Hyatt v. Apfel, Commissioner
195 F.3d 188 (Fourth Circuit, 1999)
Hyatt v. Apfel
195 F.3d 188 (Fourth Circuit, 1999)
Dixon v. Shalala
54 F.3d 1019 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Hyatt v. Shalala
6 F.3d 250 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)
Hyatt v. Heckler
711 F. Supp. 837 (W.D. North Carolina, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 F.R.D. 572, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12742, 1987 WL 35084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyatt-v-bowen-ncwd-1987.