Louise Davenport v. Michael Astrue, 417 F. App'x 544

Davenport challenged the SSA's denial of disability benefits without a hearing after the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's dismissal of her hearing request.
She applied for DIB and SSI in 2001; ALJ Bretthauer initially denied; remand occurred due to errors in developing the record.
On remand, the case was assigned to ALJ Shinitzky, who scheduled consultative exams and then sent the case back to Bretthauer.
Davenport refused to attend the June 2007 hearing and did not submit a good reason for absence; she also objected to Bretthauer’s handling.
Bretthauer dismissed Davenport’s hearing request for failure to attend and to complete scheduled exams; Appeals Council denied review.
Davenport filed a federal complaint arguing due process violations and improper consideration of HALLEX and related materials; the district court dismissed for lack of finality and exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a final decision after a hearing	Davenport argues the Appeals Council denial constitutes a final decision after a hearing.	No hearing occurred; Davenport waived exhaustion by not attending.	No final decision after a hearing; exhaustion required; dismissal affirmed.
Whether Davenport’s due-process claims excuse nonattendance	Due process violated by bias and failure to follow procedures in brochures and HALLEX.	No due-process violation; failure to attend extinguishes right to a hearing.	Due process not violated; refusal to attend defeats exhaustion.
Whether HALLEX/unfair-treatment materials create enforceable rights	HALLEX and brochure create procedural protections and rights to a fair hearing.	HALLEX and brochure are nonbinding; do not create constitutional rights.	HALLEX/brochures do not create enforceable due-process rights.
Whether the agency's alleged bias constitutes a basis to excuse exhaustion	ALJ's prior rulings show personal enmity and bias against Davenport.	Rulings do not prove bias; cannot excuse exhaustion.	Bias not shown; exhaustion not excused.

Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (limits review to final decision after a hearing)
Hoye v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1992) (exhaustion required; no review of unexhausted claims)
Subia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion required; hearing necessity)
Brandyburg v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1992) (exhaustion principle and hearing requirement cited)
Doe v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 744 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1984) (procedural exhaustion considerations)
Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900 (3d Cir. 1995) (due process in SSA hearings; full and fair hearing standard)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (due process and hearing concepts in SSA context)
Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (BROCHUREs and nonbinding nature of internal rules)
Socha v. Pollard, 621 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion requirement in SSA context)
Lockwood v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010) (HALLEX as nonbinding guidance case)