Catherine Schiel-Leodoro v. Nancy Berryhill
697 F. App'x 578
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Schiel-Leodoro sought review of an ALJ’s discretionary denial of her request to reopen an earlier Social Security benefits application; the district court held it lacked jurisdiction and she appealed.
- The core procedural question was whether the denial to reopen is a final, reviewable decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Schiel-Leodoro argued she had a colorable due process claim based on (a) mental impairments and lack of counsel at the time of the 2010 denial, (b) allegedly deficient notice of the 2010 denial, and (c) the Appeals Council’s handling of the reopening request.
- She also invoked a “manifest injustice” exception, claiming res judicata errors affected the reopening decision.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed the district court: reopening denials are discretionary and not reviewable absent a colorable constitutional claim; Schiel-Leodoro failed to allege such a claim and could not rely on the manifest injustice exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction to review ALJ’s denial to reopen | Reopening denial should be reviewable | Reopening is discretionary and not a final decision under §405(g) | No jurisdiction; discretionary reopening not reviewable absent colorable constitutional claim |
| Whether mental impairment/lack of counsel in 2010 denial violated due process | Mental impairments and no counsel prevented her from contesting denial | She hasn’t shown impairment prevented understanding or met SSA Ruling criteria | Not colorable; no showing mental impairment prevented contesting the denial |
| Whether defective notice of 2010 denial violated due process | Notice was deficient (notice missing from current record) | Plaintiff cannot show actual deficiency in notice in administrative record | Not colorable; plaintiff failed to demonstrate how notice was deficient |
| Whether “manifest injustice” or res judicata error permits review | Manifest injustice exception applies because res judicata was misapplied | ALJ applied res judicata in second application, not in reopening decision; exception inapplicable | Exception not available; res judicata did not govern reopening and plaintiff shows no manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for jurisdictional question)
- Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ’s discretionary reopening decision is not a final, reviewable decision under §405(g))
- Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1990) (deficient notice of benefits decision can violate due process)
- Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 1996) (Appeals Council need not make detailed evidentiary findings to deny review)
- Nicholson v. Finch, 311 F. Supp. 614 (D. Mont. 1970) (not binding on Ninth Circuit and does not mandate reopening)