Robert L. Sampson v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

First Circuit

Robert L. Sampson v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

551 F.2d 881, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14029

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

Docket76-1394

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 551 F.2d 881 (Robert L. Sampson v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert L. Sampson v. Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 551 F.2d 881, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14029 (1st Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

*882 COFFIN, Chief Judge.

Appellant first filed for social security disability benefits in 1955, claiming that he had been unable to work since contracting tuberculosis in 1950. The application was denied initially, and no further review was sought. A second application based on the same claim was filed in 1964. This was also denied initially, and appellant requested a hearing. The Hearing Examiner believed that the claim was barred by the prior determination, but also determined on the merits that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act during his period of eligibility. Appellant did not seek further review.

A third application filed in 1968 was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, but it was not until a fourth application, filed, in 1973, was dismissed on the same grounds that appellant sought review in the district court. The district court upheld the Secretary’s determination, and we affirm.

Appellant’s 1973 claim was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds, since the claim was identical to the one heard and denied in 1965, after appellant’s eligibility for benefits expired. See Ruiz-Olan v. Secretary of H. E. W., 511 F.2d 1056 (1st Cir. 1975). Appellant’s claim that his condition deteriorated after his eligibility lapsed does not affect the finality or the validity of the prior determination. Cf. id. at 1058; Steimer v. Gardner, 395 F.2d 197, 198 (9th Cir. 1968).

The Administrative Law Judge also determined that there was no good cause shown for reopening the earlier applications. This circuit has held such decisions reviewable, Bradley v. Weinberger, 483 F.2d 410, 413 (1st Cir. 1973), and the district court held that the determination not to reopen was proper in this case. It is now clear, however, that, in the absence of a constitutional claim, judicial review of a decision not to reopen is foreclosed. Califano v. Sanders, - U.S. -, -, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).

Affirmed.

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

*882 COFFIN, Chief Judge.

Appellant first filed for social security disability benefits in 1955, claiming that he had been unable to work since contracting tuberculosis in 1950. The application was denied initially, and no further review was sought. A second application based on the same claim was filed in 1964. This was also denied initially, and appellant requested a hearing. The Hearing Examiner believed that the claim was barred by the prior determination, but also determined on the merits that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act during his period of eligibility. Appellant did not seek further review.

A third application filed in 1968 was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, but it was not until a fourth application, filed, in 1973, was dismissed on the same grounds that appellant sought review in the district court. The district court upheld the Secretary’s determination, and we affirm.

Appellant’s 1973 claim was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds, since the claim was identical to the one heard and denied in 1965, after appellant’s eligibility for benefits expired. See Ruiz-Olan v. Secretary of H. E. W., 511 F.2d 1056 (1st Cir. 1975). Appellant’s claim that his condition deteriorated after his eligibility lapsed does not affect the finality or the validity of the prior determination. Cf. id. at 1058; Steimer v. Gardner, 395 F.2d 197, 198 (9th Cir. 1968).

The Administrative Law Judge also determined that there was no good cause shown for reopening the earlier applications. This circuit has held such decisions reviewable, Bradley v. Weinberger, 483 F.2d 410, 413 (1st Cir. 1973), and the district court held that the determination not to reopen was proper in this case. It is now clear, however, that, in the absence of a constitutional claim, judicial review of a decision not to reopen is foreclosed. Califano v. Sanders, - U.S. -, -, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 F.2d 881, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-l-sampson-v-joseph-a-califano-secretary-of-health-education-and-ca1-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack