Taylor v. Social Security Administration, Civil Action No. 2015-1468

Plaintiff Joseph Milton Taylor challenged an SSA August 18, 2014 overpayment determination that initially asserted he had been overpaid by more than $25,000 due to alleged payments during periods of incarceration.
After Plaintiff sought reconsideration, the SSA issued a Revised Determination on or about October 3, 2016, reducing the asserted overpayment to $1,956.
Plaintiff filed suit in federal court contesting the Revised Determination’s accuracy and asserting a constitutional challenge to 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a) (the regulation barring benefit payments while an individual is confined).
The SSA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the SSA initially relied on a different earlier decision but then clarified the present challenge pertained to the Revised Determination.
The court ordered the SSA to report whether Plaintiff appealed the Revised Determination and whether constitutional claims must be presented to the agency first; the SSA reported Plaintiff had not appealed and argued administrative exhaustion was required.
The court found no record that Taylor presented either the overpayment dispute or his constitutional challenge to the SSA and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (alternatively for failure to exhaust administrative remedies).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) absent a final decision by the Commissioner	Taylor contended the Revised Determination is incorrect and asserted a constitutional challenge to 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a) in district court	SSA argued Taylor did not present (appeal or request hearing on) the Revised Determination to the agency, so no final decision exists	Court: No jurisdiction — Taylor failed to satisfy the presentment requirement for a Commissioner’s final decision; dismissal without prejudice
Whether plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before raising constitutional challenge to SSA regulation	Taylor proceeded directly to district court on the constitutional claim	SSA argued constitutional challenge must first be raised at the agency level and exhaustion is required	Court: Plaintiff did not present the constitutional claim to SSA; exhaustion/presentment lacking; dismissal (and, alternatively, failure to exhaust)

Beattie v. Astrue, 845 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2012) (describing the multi-step administrative review process for SSA decisions)
Ryan v. Bentsen, 12 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (distinguishing presentment and exhaustion components of § 405(g) and explaining presentment is jurisdictional)