Boisey C. v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Background

Boisey C., proceeding without a lawyer, sought disabled adult child benefits under the Social Security Act. He claimed that disabilities beginning during childhood entitled him to benefits based on his deceased father’s Social Security record.

The Social Security Administration denied Boisey C.’s first application. In a prior related proceeding, the district court upheld that denial, finding that substantial evidence supported the decision and that the record did not establish a disability beginning before age 22. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The earlier proceeding also found that the administrative law judge had adequately tried to obtain childhood records, including records from a correctional facility whose records had been destroyed.

Boisey C. filed another application in 2022, again claiming disability beginning in childhood. After a hearing at which he testified about physical and mental disabilities, the administrative law judge dismissed the application under res judicata, the rule generally preventing a previously decided claim involving the same facts and issues from being decided again. The administrative law judge found no new and material evidence and no relevant change in law, regulations, or legal precedent. The judge did not address whether the earlier decision should be reopened or revised.

Issues and positions

Boisey C. moved for summary judgment and asked the court to remand the case solely for calculation of benefits. The Commissioner maintained that such a remand was not permitted, but agreed that the case should be sent back so the administrative law judge could address whether reopening or revision procedures applied.

The court considered whether 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) gave it jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the later application on res judicata grounds. The court also considered whether it could grant the Commissioner’s request for a limited remand to correct the administrative law judge’s failure to follow the Social Security Administration’s internal procedures.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that Section 405(g) generally permits judicial review only of a final decision of the Commissioner following a hearing. Supreme Court precedent generally limits judicial review of decisions about reopening earlier benefit determinations because reopening is discretionary and may occur without a hearing.

The court noted, however, that Social Security Administration procedures state that when a later application is denied on res judicata grounds, the decision-maker must first consider whether reopening or revising the earlier decision applies. Although those internal manual provisions are not binding regulations, the court found that they provided guidance about the Administration’s procedures. The Commissioner acknowledged that the administrative law judge had not performed this required preliminary analysis.

The court agreed that the administrative law judge improperly applied the Administration’s procedures by failing to consider reopening or revision before dismissing the later application. Because the agency had not first addressed that issue, the court concluded that the agency should evaluate it in the first instance. The court therefore exercised limited jurisdiction under the sentence-four remand provision of Section 405(g) for that purpose.

Disposition

The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to conduct the review or grant the relief Boisey C. requested, including a remand solely to calculate benefits. It declined to address Boisey C.’s motion, dismissed the action, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for remand so the administrative law judge could determine whether reopening or revision procedures applied. The court did not decide whether Boisey C. was entitled to disabled adult child benefits or whether the earlier decision should ultimately be reopened or revised. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions identified in the order.