Lola Mae Sheppeard v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health & Human Services

Eleventh Circuit

Lola Mae Sheppeard v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health & Human Services

760 F.2d 1253, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30016, 9 Soc. Serv. Rev. 312

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 1985

Docket84-8857

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 760 F.2d 1253 (Lola Mae Sheppeard v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health & Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lola Mae Sheppeard v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health & Human Services, 760 F.2d 1253, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30016, 9 Soc. Serv. Rev. 312 (11th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a Social Security disability case in which the Secretary determined that there had been an overpayment of benefits to the *1254 claimant. The basis for the overpayment decision was that the claimant had entered into a common-law marriage under the law of Georgia, and that her common-law husband’s income was therefore attributable to her. Claimant challenges the Secretary’s finding that a common-law marriage exists and, having exhausted her administrative remedies, an action for review was brought in federal district court. The district court upheld the decision of the Secretary and claimant appeals.

We affirm that part of the district court’s order upholding the finding of the Secretary that a valid common-law marriage existed and that claimant had therefore received an overpayment. 1 We vacate, however, that part of the order which addresses the issue of waiver. The question of waiver was never raised or argued by the claimant. It was therefore improper for the Administrative Law Judge to consider that issue, and likewise improper for the district court to concur in the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that claimant was at fault and thus not entitled to a waiver. In fact both the Appeals Council and the federal magistrate recognized that waiver was not in issue. Because the decision of the Appeals Council is in effect the final decision of the Secretary, see e.g. Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1388 (11th Cir.1982), it was both improper and inconsistent for the Secretary to urge the district court to affirm that which the Appeals Council had already ruled was not in issue.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part.

1

. We do so without an opinion under Circuit Rule 25.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is a Social Security disability case in which the Secretary determined that there had been an overpayment of benefits to the *1254 claimant. The basis for the overpayment decision was that the claimant had entered into a common-law marriage under the law of Georgia, and that her common-law husband’s income was therefore attributable to her. Claimant challenges the Secretary’s finding that a common-law marriage exists and, having exhausted her administrative remedies, an action for review was brought in federal district court. The district court upheld the decision of the Secretary and claimant appeals.

We affirm that part of the district court’s order upholding the finding of the Secretary that a valid common-law marriage existed and that claimant had therefore received an overpayment. 1 We vacate, however, that part of the order which addresses the issue of waiver. The question of waiver was never raised or argued by the claimant. It was therefore improper for the Administrative Law Judge to consider that issue, and likewise improper for the district court to concur in the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that claimant was at fault and thus not entitled to a waiver. In fact both the Appeals Council and the federal magistrate recognized that waiver was not in issue. Because the decision of the Appeals Council is in effect the final decision of the Secretary, see e.g. Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1388 (11th Cir.1982), it was both improper and inconsistent for the Secretary to urge the district court to affirm that which the Appeals Council had already ruled was not in issue.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part.

1

. We do so without an opinion under Circuit Rule 25.

31 soc.sec.rep.ser. 313, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15742a Doris Myers v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services of the United States, Carolyn L. Grimes v. Louis W. Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services of the United States, Althea D. Parker v. Louis W. Sullivan, as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mary Cohen v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services

916 F.2d 659 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)

Myers v. Sullivan

916 F.2d 659 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 F.2d 1253, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 30016, 9 Soc. Serv. Rev. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lola-mae-sheppeard-v-margaret-m-heckler-secretary-of-health-human-ca11-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack