TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

Jo Ann ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

Ellis v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 30, 1981
Docket
No. 81-1310
Judges
Clark, Rubin, Johnson
Citations
662 F.2d 4191981 U.S. App. LEXIS 15632

Opinion — Rubin

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1982: 31985: 11988: 11991: 11992: 31996: 21999: 12020: 119822026peak 1982 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) 3,640
Williams v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 598 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1979) 21
Cargill v. Offshore Logistics, Inc., 615 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1980) 16
Hensley v. Califano, 601 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1979) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list