T.W. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

T.W. filed this action challenging a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security concerning his application for disability benefits. The Commissioner filed an answer and the administrative record. T.W. then filed a document asking the court to order the agency to lodge a complete electronic record. The court treated that filing as a motion to supplement the administrative record.

The administrative record showed that T.W. requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. At the February 7, 2018 hearing, T.W. began testifying. According to the Commissioner, T.W. stated that he was working for Knowledge Learning Corporation, the administrative law judge explained that this employment would make him ineligible for disability benefits, T.W.’s attorney stated that T.W. would withdraw his disability claim, and T.W. said he understood the consequences. The administrative law judge then dismissed T.W.’s request for a hearing. The Appeals Council denied T.W.’s request for review.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court asked the parties to address whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. Both parties argued that jurisdiction existed. The court explained that judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requires that the benefits claim have been presented to the Commissioner and generally requires exhaustion of the agency’s review process.

The court concluded that the nonwaivable requirement that T.W. present his claim to the agency was satisfied. It also concluded that any objection based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies had been waived because the Commissioner expressly and unambiguously stated that the agency waived reliance on that requirement by answering the case and continued to waive it. The court therefore concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction. It did not decide whether withdrawing the hearing request would, by itself, satisfy the exhaustion requirement in every case.

Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record

T.W. argued that the administrative record improperly omitted his medical-treatment records. The Commissioner responded that the court was reviewing the procedural dismissal of T.W.’s hearing request, not the merits of his disability claim, so the medical records were not necessary for the current review.

The court agreed that the agency’s dismissal was based on a procedural issue. It explained that, in the ordinary case, judicial review should remain focused on the procedural ground supporting the agency’s dismissal, with any remaining substantive issues addressed by the agency first. If the court later determines that the dismissal was erroneous, it would ordinarily remand the case to the Commissioner to consider the merits of T.W.’s disability claim in the first instance.

The court DENIED T.W.’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. The court stated that it could order supplementation later if, while reviewing the parties’ merits briefs, it found that the existing record was inadequate.

Case Schedule and Disposition

The court ordered the parties to file briefs under the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which replaced summary judgment as the ordinary method for reviewing a Social Security claim on a single administrative record. T.W.’s brief was due March 23, 2023; the Commissioner’s brief was due April 24, 2023; and T.W.’s reply brief was due May 8, 2023.

The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction and DENIED T.W.’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record.