Dianne Weeks v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr, 694 F. App'x 340

Weeks filed for Social Security disability (Nov 2009); initial denial and unfavorable ALJ decision (Jan 21, 2011); Appeals Council denied review (Apr 2012).
Weeks did not seek district court review of the 2012 Appeals Council decision.
In July 2013, after obtaining counsel, Weeks filed a second application with a doctor’s statement backdating to the earlier period; SSA denied it as presenting the same issues as the January 2011 decision.
Weeks also sought reopening of the 2009/2012 matter between July 2013 and Sept 2015; the Appeals Council found no reason to reopen.
Weeks sued in district court (Nov 6, 2015); the Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no jurisdiction over refusal-to-reopen claims absent a colorable constitutional claim and concluding Weeks did not raise such a claim or exhaust administrative remedies for the 2013 application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review SSA refusal to reopen an earlier denial	Weeks argued the refusal to reopen was reviewable and that she raised constitutional problems	Commissioner argued refusals to reopen are committed to SSA discretion and not judicially reviewable	Refusal to reopen is not judicially reviewable; jurisdiction lacking absent a colorable constitutional claim
Whether Weeks exhausted administrative remedies for the July 2013 application	Weeks contended the 2013 filing should be treated as a new claim tied to earlier period and thus reviewable	Commissioner argued Weeks failed to exhaust administrative appeals for the 2013 denial	Weeks failed to show exhaustion; district court lacked jurisdiction over the 2013 claim
Whether Weeks presented a colorable constitutional claim to overcome finality/exhaustion bars	Weeks alleged constitutional problems in pleading and communications about reopening	Commissioner maintained Weeks did not plead or develop any colorable constitutional claim	Court held Weeks did not allege a colorable constitutional claim; conclusory allegations insufficient
Whether any prototype/process argument (relating to 2013 denial) justified review	Weeks did not adequately raise or develop this argument below or on appeal	Commissioner treated the process claim as unraised/abandoned	Argument was abandoned and inadequately briefed; court did not consider it

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (administrative exhaustion requirement before judicial review)
Harper v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1987) (steps required for Social Security final decision)
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1975) (final decision/hearing requirement under benefits statutes)
Brandyburg v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1992) (definition of final decision via regulations)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1977) (judicial review may be allowed for colorable constitutional claims despite finality rules)
Robertson v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1986) (application of finality doctrine)
Kinash v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 1997) (need for a colorable constitutional claim, not conclusory allegations)
Thibodeaux v. Bowen, 819 F.2d 76 (5th Cir. 1987) (refusal to reopen not subject to review)
Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) (plaintiff bears burden to prove subject-matter jurisdiction when defendant attacks factually)
In re Repine (Young v. Repine), 536 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008) (failure to brief issues on appeal constitutes abandonment)