Mary B. v. Saul

Background

Mary B. applied for disability insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. Mary B. then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

The agency scheduled a video hearing for November 26, 2018, in Minneapolis. Although the hearing would be conducted remotely, Mary B., her husband, her witness, and her attorney were expected to travel to the Minneapolis hearing office. The hearing notice warned that the request could be dismissed if Mary B. did not appear without a good reason.

Before the hearing, Mary B.’s attorney asked to postpone it until May 2019, citing the distance from Willmar, the condition of Highway 12, possible late-November weather, Mary B.’s alleged inability to drive, her husband’s disability, the age of a witness, and the attorney’s health and age. The Administrative Law Judge declined to postpone the hearing and offered a telephone hearing or a later time that same day. The attorney declined those alternatives.

Neither Mary B. nor her attorney appeared on November 26. The attorney reported that severe weather and road conditions prevented their attendance. In response to a notice requesting an explanation, the attorney again cited hazardous weather, freezing precipitation, the distance, the road, and the husband’s physical disability. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the hearing request, finding that Mary B. had not shown a good reason for failing to appear. That dismissal left the agency’s denial of her benefits claim in place.

Arguments and legal standard

Mary B. asked the district court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision for two reasons. First, she argued that the Administrative Law Judge wrongly found that she had not shown good cause for missing the hearing and failed to consider her physical impairments, her husband’s disability, and her attorney’s physical limitations. Second, she argued that the Commissioner abused his discretion by assigning the matter to a Cleveland hearing office rather than a Minnesota hearing office.

The Commissioner argued that the Administrative Law Judge properly applied the governing regulation and that weather reports supported the finding that severe weather had not prevented attendance. The court reviewed the decision for legal error and to determine whether its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that reasonably supports the agency’s conclusion.

Court’s analysis

The court applied 20 C.F.R. § 404.957, which allows an Administrative Law Judge to dismiss a hearing request when neither the claimant nor the claimant’s representative appears and the claimant does not provide a good reason. The regulation also requires consideration of the claimant’s physical, mental, educational, or language-related limitations.

The court held that the Administrative Law Judge did not err. Mary B. and her attorney received notice of the hearing well in advance, acknowledged that they would attend in Minneapolis, and declined the offered telephone hearing. The court concluded that they had not shown that something beyond their control prevented attendance.

The court rejected Mary B.’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge failed to consider her own physical limitations. Mary B.’s response to the notice requesting an explanation did not state that her limitations prevented her from attending. The Administrative Law Judge stated that the regulatory factors had been considered. The court also noted that a prior function report indicated that Mary B. drove and that she did not identify evidence showing that her condition prevented her from operating a vehicle at the time of the hearing.

The court further held that the regulation required consideration of Mary B.’s limitations, but did not require the Administrative Law Judge to consider the limitations of her husband, attorney, or witness. The court also found that weather reports from Willmar and Minneapolis showed no extreme or hazardous weather on the hearing date, supporting the finding that the claimed weather conditions did not establish good cause.

The court did not decide whether the earlier denial of the postponement was proper because that decision was not the final agency decision under review. It likewise found no basis for reviewing the assignment of the case to a nonlocal hearing office and noted that Mary B. cited no authority showing that the assignment was reviewable or constituted an abuse of discretion. The court also identified, but did not decide, a possible jurisdictional issue concerning judicial review when no administrative hearing occurred.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of Mary B.’s hearing request. The court denied Mary B.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the matter.