[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57687-57689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27843]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 99-4 (11)]


Bloodsworth v. Heckler; Judicial Review of an Appeals Council 
Dismissal of a Request for Review of an Administrative Law Judge 
Decision--Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), the Commissioner of 
Social Security gives notice of a revision to Social Security 
Acquiescence Ruling 92-4(11) by issuing Social Security Acquiescence 
Ruling 99-4 (11).

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wanda D. Mason, Litigation Staff, 
Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 
21235, (410) 966-5044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are rescinding Social Security 
Acquiescence Ruling 92-4(11) and publishing this revised Acquiescence 
Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2).
    A Social Security Acquiescence Ruling explains how we will apply a 
holding in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we 
determine conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the Act 
or regulations when the Government has decided not to seek further 
review of that decision or is unsuccessful on further review.

[[Page 57688]]

    On April 8, 1992, we published Acquiescence Ruling 92-4(11) in the 
Federal Register (57 FR 11961) to reflect the holding in Bloodsworth v. 
Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983). The Acquiescence Ruling 
applied to Appeals Council dismissals of requests for review of 
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions. The Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit held that an Appeals Council dismissal of a request 
for review of an ALJ decision for reasons of untimeliness is a ``final 
decision of the Secretary made after a hearing'' within the meaning of 
section 205(g) of the Social Security Act and, therefore, subject to 
judicial review.
    The Ruling's section entitled ``Statement As To How Bloodsworth 
Differs From Social Security Policy'' included a parenthetical 
statement that an ``Appeals Council grant of request or denial of 
request for review of an ALJ decision is judicially reviewable.'' That 
statement is incorrect and is inconsistent with the regulations that it 
purports to explain, 20 CFR 404.955, 416.1455 and 422.210. The 
parenthetical statement also is inconsistent with the regulations at 20 
CFR 404.981 and 416.1481. Moreover, it was not the issue addressed by 
the Acquiescence Ruling and was not the subject of the Eleventh 
Circuit's decision.
    For purposes of clarity and consistency with our regulations, we 
are rescinding AR 92-4 (11) and revising the Acquiescence Ruling by 
deleting this parenthetical statement. We also have made several minor 
editorial and technical changes to update and clarify the Ruling. These 
revisions are technical corrections only and do not involve any 
substantive changes to the Bloodsworth Acquiescence Ruling. Some minor 
language changes are also being made for improved readability.
    We will apply the holding of the Court of Appeals' decision as 
explained in this revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to 
Appeals Council dismissals of requests for review of ALJ decisions for 
claimants who reside within the states in the Eleventh Circuit at the 
time of the Appeals Council's dismissal of the request for review. This 
revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all Appeals 
Council dismissals of ALJ decisions made on or after October 26, 1999, 
except if relief and/or review has been granted pursuant to the 
previously issued Acquiescence Ruling 92-4 (11) which was published on 
April 8, 1992. If we made a determination or decision on your 
application for benefits between April 25, 1983, the date of the Court 
of Appeals' decision, and October 26, 1999, the effective date of this 
revised Social Security Acquiescence Ruling, you may request 
application of this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to your claim 
if you first demonstrate, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) or 
416.1485(b)(2), that application of the Acquiescence Ruling could 
change our prior determination or decision.
    If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as 
obsolete, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that 
effect, as provided in 20 CFR 404.985(e), or 416.1485(e). If we decide 
to relitigate the issue covered by this Social Security Acquiescence 
Ruling as provided for by 20 CFR 404.985(c) or 416.1485(c), we will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that we will apply our 
interpretation of the Act or regulations involved. We will also explain 
why we have decided to relitigate the issue.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001 Social 
Security - Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security - Retirement 
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security - Survivor's Insurance; 96.003 - 
Special Benefits for Persons Aged 72 and Over; 96.006 - Supplemental 
Security Income.)

    Dated: September 2, 1999.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security.

Acquiescence Ruling 99-4 (11)

    Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)--Judicial 
Review of an Appeals Council Dismissal of a Request for Review of an 
Administrative Law Judge Decision--Titles II and XVI of the Social 
Security Act.
    Issue: Whether a dismissal by the Appeals Council of a request for 
review of an ALJ decision is a ``final decision'' which is judicially 
reviewable.
    Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation: Sections 205(g) and (h) and 
1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. sections 405(g) and 
(h) and 1383(c)(3)); 20 CFR 404.955, 404.967, 404.968, 404.971, 
404.972, 404.981, 404.982, 416.1455, 416.1467, 416.1468, 416.1471, 
416.1472, 416.1481, 416.1482 and 422.210.
    Circuit: Eleventh (Alabama, Florida, Georgia).
    Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)
    Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling applies only to the Appeals 
Council dismissals of requests for review of ALJ decisions.
    Description of Case: In 1979, Mr. Jack Bloodsworth, the claimant in 
this case, filed applications for a period of disability, disability 
insurance benefits, and supplemental security income payments. The 
applications were denied initially, on reconsideration, and by an ALJ 
after a hearing. The claimant missed the 60-day time limit for filing 
his request for review of the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council 
because it was filed approximately two weeks after the deadline. 
Therefore, the Appeals Council dismissed the request for review on the 
basis of untimeliness without good cause.
    The claimant then filed a complaint in Federal district court, 
alleging that denial of the extension of time to file was not supported 
by substantial evidence. The district court rejected the Social 
Security Administration's (SSA) argument that it lacked jurisdiction, 
reviewed the Appeals Council's denial of an extension of time, and 
remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the claim. 
1 On remand, the Appeals Council restated its position that 
the claimant's request for review was untimely filed, but considered 
the claim on the merits as ordered, and denied the claimant's request 
for review. The district court affirmed the decision and the claimant 
appealed. On appeal, SSA again argued that the district court lacked 
jurisdiction.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Social Security Independence and Program 
Improvements Act of 1994, Pub.L.No. 103-296, effective March 31, 
1995, Social Security Administration (SSA) became an independent 
Agency in the Executive Branch of the United States Government and 
was provided ultimate responsibility for administering the Social 
Security and Supplemental Security Income programs under titles II 
and XVI of the Act. Prior to March 31, 1995, the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services had such responsibility.
    \2\ The Government argued that the district court lacked subject 
matter jurisdiction under sections 205(g) and (h) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 405(g) and (h)) because the 
plaintiff failed to meet the ``final decision'' and ``made after a 
hearing'' requirements of these sections. The Government contended 
that: (1) Dismissal of a request for review on the basis of 
untimeliness without ``good cause'' is not a ``final decision'' for 
it does not constitute a determination on the merits; and (2) it is 
not ``made after a hearing'' because no hearing is granted solely 
and specifically on the request for review itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Holding: The Eleventh Circuit held that an Appeals Council 
dismissal of a request for review of an ALJ decision for reasons of 
untimeliness is a ``final decision of the Secretary made after a 
hearing'' within the meaning of section 205(g) of the Social Security 
Act3 and, therefore, subject to judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 
405(g)) currently provides in pertinent part that ``[a]ny 
individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social 
Security made after a hearing to which he was a party,* * *  may 
obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within 
sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or 
within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may 
allow.'' At the time of the decision in Bloodsworth, however, the 
statute referred to a ``final decision of the Secretary.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57689]]

    Regarding the right to judicial review, the Eleventh Circuit stated 
that neither the statute nor the regulations make any distinction 
between Appeals Council dismissals and ``determinations on the 
merits.'' The court found that both actions are equally final and that 
both trigger a right to review by the district court. The court 
interpreted 20 CFR 404.972 and 404.9814 to provide that ``an 
Appeals Council review determination, on whatever grounds, is perceived 
as the appropriately `final decision' from which to take an appeal to 
the district court under section 405(g).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 20 CFR 404.981 and 416.1481 state, in pertinent part, that 
``[t]he Appeals Council's decision, or the decision of the 
administrative law judge if the request for review is denied, is 
binding unless you or another party file an action in Federal 
district court, or the decision is revised.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement as to How Bloodsworth Differs From SSA's Interpretation of 
the Regulations

    The Eleventh Circuit held that an Appeals Council dismissal of a 
request for review of an ALJ decision is a ``final decision of the 
Secretary made after a hearing'' (now a ``final decision of the 
Commissioner of Social Security'') within the meaning of section 205(g) 
of the Social Security Act and, therefore, subject to judicial 
review.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As the Supreme Court has noted, the term ``final decision'' 
is not defined in the Social Security Act, but the Act gives 
authority to the agency to prescribe its meaning by regulation. 
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the holding of the court in Bloodsworth, SSA policy is 
that the regulations make a clear distinction in regard to rights of 
judicial review between dismissals and determinations on the merits by 
the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council may take three types of action 
following an ALJ decision:
    (1) It may grant a request for review;
    (2) it may deny a request for review; or
    (3) it may dismiss a request for review. The dismissal of a request 
for review of an ALJ decision is binding and not subject to further 
review. 20 CFR 404.972, 416.1472. See also 20 CFR 404.955, 416.1455, 
422.210. The Appeals Council will dismiss a request for review if it is 
untimely filed and the time for filing has not been 
extended.6 The Appeals Council may also dismiss a request 
for review for other prescribed reasons. 20 CFR 404.971, 416.1471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Appeals Council, upon good cause shown, may extend the 
time for filing a request for review of an ALJ decision. 20 CFR 
404.968(b), 416.1468(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SSA's position, based on the above-cited regulations, is that an 
Appeals Council dismissal is not a ``final decision of the Commissioner 
of Social Security made after a hearing.'' Therefore, such a dismissal 
is not judicially reviewable under section 205(g) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(g)).

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply The Bloodsworth Decision Within the 
Circuit

    This Ruling applies only to cases involving claimants who reside in 
Alabama, Florida, or Georgia at the time of the Appeals Council 
dismissal of the request for review.
    Notices sent by the Appeals Council which dismiss requests for 
review of ALJ decisions will advise claimants in these states of their 
right to request judicial review.
[FR Doc. 99-27843 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-F