Celeste E. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jones
- 1:24-cv-03856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Celeste E. v. Commissioner, Judge Jones denied review, granted the Commissioner’s request, and dismissed the case because the Appeals Council properly rejected an untimely appeal.
Alexandra Celeste E.’s federal challenge to the denial of disability benefits was dismissed; the Commissioner’s position that the Appeals Council properly dismissed the late request for review prevailed.
What happened
In Alexandra Celeste E. v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the denial of her application for disability benefits. The Appeals Council dismissed her request to review the administrative judge’s decision because it was filed late.
The court determined that the plaintiff’s request was due October 27, 2022, but that she requested review months later. It found that she had not shown a valid reason for missing the deadline or for failing to respond to the Appeals Council’s request for an explanation.
Judge Gary R. Jones ruled that the Appeals Council had not abused its discretion. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for review, granted the Commissioner’s request to affirm the dismissal, and dismissed the case.
The detailed version
- Celeste E. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:24-cv-03856
- Jones
- May 13, 2025
Background
Alexandra Celeste E. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act in November 2020. An administrative law judge denied the application on August 23, 2022, finding that she had a severe seizure-related impairment but retained the ability to perform a full range of work with restrictions against working at heights, around heavy or moving machinery, or in a job requiring driving. The administrative law judge found that jobs existed in significant numbers that she could perform.
The plaintiff requested review by the Social Security Appeals Council. The opinion states in one section that she filed the request on March 2, 2023, while elsewhere it states that she requested review on May 2, 2023. The Appeals Council treated the request as untimely, asked her to provide a statement showing good cause for the delay, and dismissed the request after she did not respond.
The plaintiff filed this federal case without a lawyer and later obtained counsel. She argued that the Appeals Council should have excused the late filing. The Commissioner requested judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the case.
Court’s analysis
A claimant generally has 60 days to ask the Appeals Council to review an administrative law judge’s decision. Notice is generally presumed received five days after the decision date. Based on the August 23, 2022 decision, the court calculated the filing deadline as October 27, 2022.
The court reviewed the Appeals Council’s handling of the late request for abuse of discretion, meaning whether the Council acted beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment. It concluded that the Council did not do so. The plaintiff’s request for review did not explain the delay, and she did not claim that she lacked notice of either the administrative law judge’s decision or the Appeals Council’s request for a good-cause explanation. The administrative law judge’s notice highlighted the 60-day deadline and warned that a late appeal could be dismissed.
The plaintiff later submitted evidence concerning medical appointments and efforts to obtain medical records during 2023 and 2024. The court found that this evidence did not explain why she failed to request review by October 27, 2022. She also did not explain why she failed to respond to the Appeals Council’s good-cause request.
Ruling
Judge Gary R. Jones concluded that the Appeals Council did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the untimely request. The court denied the plaintiff’s Request for Review of a Social Security Decision, granted the Commissioner’s Request to Affirm the Appeals Council’s Dismissal for Untimeliness, and dismissed the case. The court therefore did not reach the underlying question whether the plaintiff was entitled to disability benefits.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.