Vargas v. Barnhart

101 F. App'x 989
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 1, 2004
Docket03-51404
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 101 F. App'x 989 (Vargas v. Barnhart) 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
Vargas v. Barnhart, 101 F. App'x 989 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: 1

Pedro Vargas appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for judicial review of the dismissal of his application for disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. He argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive notice of the administrative hearing and the Commissioner did not comply with the regulations pertaining to dismissal of the claim. Because Vargas raised a colorable constitutional claim, the district court had jurisdiction to consider his petition for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).

Vargas has not shown that his due process rights were violated. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sent all of the notices to the last known address provided by Vargas in his application. At no time did Vargas notify the ALJ that his address had changed or that the post office box address was no longer valid. Although Vargas may not have received the first two notices of the hearing, the record shows that he signed and returned the mail receipt for the show cause order sent by certified mail. Vargas does not dispute that he received the show cause order. However, Vargas failed to respond to it. Thus, the record indicates that the notices sent by the ALJ satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding that Vargas had not shown a due process violation.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

Francisco v. Barnhart
366 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D. Texas, 2004)
Rogers v. Barnhart
365 F. Supp. 2d 803 (S.D. Texas, 2004)
McQueen v. Barnhart
365 F. Supp. 2d 798 (S.D. Texas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 F. App'x 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-barnhart-ca5-2004.