Jo Ann Ellis v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Fifth Circuit

Jo Ann Ellis v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services

662 F.2d 419, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 15632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 1981

Docket81-1310

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 662 F.2d 419 (Jo Ann Ellis v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jo Ann Ellis v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 662 F.2d 419, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 15632 (5th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

Denied disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act in 1976, Jo Ann Ellis did not appeal. In 1979, she filed a second application for the same benefits for the same period, alleging the same disability arising on the same date. After this application was denied, Ms. Ellis requested a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge again found her not to have been disabled. On review, the Appeals Council reopened the decision of the ALS and dismissed the request for a hearing on the basis of res judicata.

The Supreme Court held in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192, that neither § 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, nor § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), grants the district courts jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for Social Security benefits. The petition for benefits was not explicitly a petition to reopen the prior hearing but it was in effect exactly such a request. As the Court said in Sanders,

We also agree that section 205(g) cannot be read to authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing to reopen claims for social security benefits.

430 U.S. at 109, 97 S.Ct. at 986, 51 L.Ed.2d at 195.

We have ourselves applied this rule in a case in which the Secretary denied benefits on grounds of res judicata and simultaneously refused to reopen an earlier claim. Hensley v. Califano, 601 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. *420 1979). That decision is the law of the circuit, and we would be obliged to adhere to it, even were we not convinced, as indeed we are, that Sanders is dispositive. Williams v. Blazer Financial Services, 598 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1979); Cargill Inc. v. Offshore Logistics, Inc., 615 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980).

Accordingly, the decision is AFFIRMED.

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

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

Denied disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act in 1976, Jo Ann Ellis did not appeal. In 1979, she filed a second application for the same benefits for the same period, alleging the same disability arising on the same date. After this application was denied, Ms. Ellis requested a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge again found her not to have been disabled. On review, the Appeals Council reopened the decision of the ALS and dismissed the request for a hearing on the basis of res judicata.

The Supreme Court held in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192, that neither § 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, nor § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), grants the district courts jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for Social Security benefits. The petition for benefits was not explicitly a petition to reopen the prior hearing but it was in effect exactly such a request. As the Court said in Sanders,

We also agree that section 205(g) cannot be read to authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing to reopen claims for social security benefits.

430 U.S. at 109, 97 S.Ct. at 986, 51 L.Ed.2d at 195.

We have ourselves applied this rule in a case in which the Secretary denied benefits on grounds of res judicata and simultaneously refused to reopen an earlier claim. Hensley v. Califano, 601 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. *420 1979). That decision is the law of the circuit, and we would be obliged to adhere to it, even were we not convinced, as indeed we are, that Sanders is dispositive. Williams v. Blazer Financial Services, 598 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1979); Cargill Inc. v. Offshore Logistics, Inc., 615 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980).

Accordingly, the decision is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 F.2d 419, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 15632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jo-ann-ellis-v-richard-s-schweiker-secretary-of-health-and-human-ca5-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack