Delmar INGRAM v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
19 soc.sec.rep.ser. 103, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 17,591 Delmar Ingram v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Secretary. The order had the effect of upholding a decision of the Secretary denying plaintiff’s request to re-open an earlier application, in order to extend the period over which benefits awarded him on his later application would be given retroactive effect.
The Supreme Court has noted that federal courts are without jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary refusing to reopen previously adjudicated claims, at least in the absence of a constitutional challenge.
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). Simply couching in constitutional language what is in reality an argument, that the Secretary abused his discretion in refusing to re-open a claim, does not convert the argument into a colorable constitutional challenge. Gos *68 nell v. Secretary, 703 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1983).
Because we conclude that the Secretary did refuse to re-open the previous application, and that plaintiff has failed to raise a colorable constitutional challenge, the Secretary’s decision is not reviewable.
In addition, plaintiff is precluded from raising here, for the first time, his argument that he is raising a colorable constitutional challenge.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affimed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.