Jeffrey Szilagyi v. Nancy Berryhill, 690 F. App'x 1003

Szilagyi applied for Social Security disability benefits (Titles II and XVI) and sought review after the Commissioner dismissed his hearing request as untimely.
District court dismissed Szilagyi’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction; Szilagyi appealed.
The Commissioner’s dismissal of the hearing request as untimely is not a final, appealable agency decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Szilagyi argued he was denied constitutionally sufficient notice because his counsel received notice late and the counsel’s copy lacked a date.
The ALJ addressed Szilagyi’s proffered reason (counsel’s lack of timely notice); Szilagyi did not allege he personally failed to receive notice, received notice at the wrong address, or lacked mental capacity to understand the notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s dismissal of a late hearing request	Szilagyi argued the dismissal denied due process because his counsel received late and undated notice, creating a colorable constitutional claim	Commissioner argued the dismissal was not an appealable final decision and the alleged notice defects do not state a colorable due process claim	Court held no jurisdiction: dismissal not reviewable under §405(g) and Szilagyi failed to allege a colorable constitutional violation

Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (untimely hearing‑request dismissals are not appealable final agency decisions; standard for colorable due process claim)
Udd v. Massanari, 245 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2001) (due process requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard; mental incapacity can support a due process claim)
Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2009) (regular mail to last known address satisfies due process notice requirements)
Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a procedural or substantive due process violation)
Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must show injury from alleged procedural due process violation)