Jones v. Social Security Administration

Background

Dorothy Jones, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Social Security Administration and Jane Doe under Title II of the Social Security Act. She sought four months of retroactive survivor’s insurance benefits based on the record of her deceased husband, Wyatt Jones. Jones had submitted a photocopy of their marriage certificate with her application.

The Administration issued a July 18, 2021 notice stating that Jones was entitled to retroactive benefits but could not receive payment until she submitted the original marriage certificate or a certified copy. The notice explained her right to appeal and how to request reconsideration. Jones said she made multiple telephone calls and that Administration employees told her they had received her original certificate. The Administration disputed that she had submitted the requested certificate and stated that it had no record of her requesting reconsideration.

The Administration moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jones had not exhausted the agency’s review process and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It alternatively argued that Jones had not met the requirements for a court order compelling government action. After Jones initially failed to respond, the court ordered her to respond; she later filed a letter opposing the motion.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The court explained that federal judicial review of a Social Security determination generally requires a final decision by the Commissioner after the claimant completes the agency’s four-step process: an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and review by the Appeals Council.

The court held that Jones had not completed even the second step because she had not requested reconsideration of the initial determination. The court said the dispute over Jones’s telephone calls and marriage certificate did not change that conclusion. Because Jones had not obtained a final agency decision, her claim was not ready for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The court also considered whether to excuse exhaustion. It found that Jones’s claim was not separate from her demand for benefits, that exhaustion would not be futile because the Administration should have the opportunity to apply its regulations to the facts, and that Jones had not shown irreparable harm from requiring her to complete the administrative process. The court therefore found no basis to excuse the exhaustion requirement.

Mandamus jurisdiction

The court considered whether Jones’s complaint could be understood as seeking mandamus, a court order requiring a government official to perform a clearly required duty. The court concluded that mandamus jurisdiction was unavailable because Jones had not shown that no other adequate remedy existed; completing the administrative process remained an available remedy.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the Administration’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.