832 F.3d 627
6th Cir.2016Background
- Clarence Berry, survivor of Leslie Berry Jr., filed a Part B claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) seeking $150,000 as a survivor for occupational illness; the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) denied the claim in 2004 for lack of verified employment at a DOE facility.
- Berry did not appeal the 2004 denial, but in 2014 he submitted a request to reopen alleging “new” employment evidence—mainly Social Security records, a subcontractor list showing Breiding/Breeding Insulation contracted with the Paducah Plant, and CPWR research noting lost company records.
- The Department of Labor (DOL) Director denied the reopening on October 29, 2014, stating the submitted documents were duplicate of evidence already considered in 2004; DOL regulation 20 C.F.R. § 30.320 permits reopening for new evidence but states the Director’s decision is within her discretion and “not reviewable.”
- Berry sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the refusal to reopen; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (or effectively as nonreviewable under the APA).
- The Sixth Circuit asked whether (1) the denial to reopen is a ‘‘final agency action’’ under the APA and (2) whether such denials are barred from judicial review as decisions “committed to agency discretion by law.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DOL’s refusal to reopen a Part B claim a "final agency action" under the APA? | The refusal is final and reviewable because it definitively denied reopening after full consideration and had direct legal consequences. | The only final action was the 2004 denial; reopening denial is not a separate final action and thus not reviewable. | Held: Yes. The reopening denial is a final agency action (consummation of decisionmaking and produces legal consequences). |
| Are reopening denials reviewable when based on new evidence? | Reopening denials based on new evidence are reviewable under the APA (abuse-of-discretion standard). | DOL contends refusals to reopen are generally committed to agency discretion and unreviewable; cites regulation and precedent. | Held: Requests to reopen based on new evidence are reviewable for abuse of discretion. |
| Are reopening denials reviewable when based on alleged material error in the original decision? | Berry argued his reopening corrected DOL’s mistaken employer name and therefore was new evidence. | DOL argued the submission merely rehashed the existing record; material-error-based reopening decisions are traditionally nonreviewable. | Held: Requests grounded only on material error are "committed to agency discretion by law" and unreviewable. |
| Was Berry’s 2014 reopening request actually based on new evidence or on material error? | Berry framed it as new employment information correcting DOL’s prior error in employer name. | DOL and the court treated the submission as duplicate/insufficiently new—merely a recharacterization of the original record. | Held: Berry’s request alleged material error (not new evidence); thus the reopening denial was unreviewable and dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (describing the two-part finality test for agency action)
- U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 590 (confirming Bennett’s finality framework)
- Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (holding denials to reopen based on material error are unreviewable; new evidence denials are reviewable)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (explaining § 701(a)(2) and decisions ‘‘committed to agency discretion by law")
- Your Home Visiting Nurse Servs., Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449 (applies BLE distinction; emphasizes nonreviewability where only previously available evidence is offered)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (discussing when agency actions have sufficiently direct and immediate legal consequences)