Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Javier Nunez brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. The opinion identifies Nunez as proceeding without a lawyer at the time relevant to the court’s consideration of the motion. He applied for benefits on March 9, 2018, and the Commissioner denied the claim on August 22, 2018.

Nunez requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and objected to having the hearing by videoconference. He later obtained an attorney, who notified the Social Security Administration in June 2019 that she would no longer represent him. The Commissioner scheduled a hearing for September 11, 2019 and sent notices warning that failure to attend without good cause could lead to dismissal of the hearing request. Nunez did not attend. On September 17, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the request for a hearing after finding no good cause and informed Nunez that he could seek review by the Appeals Council.

Motion and conversion to summary judgment

The Commissioner initially moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Nunez had not obtained a final decision from the Appeals Council. The Commissioner later filed a revised motion seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, summary judgment. The revised motion relied on documents outside the complaint, including agency records and hearing notices.

Because those materials were integral to resolving the motion and could not be excluded, the court treated the dismissal motion as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court found that Nunez received clear notice that the motion could be treated as one for summary judgment and that he had an opportunity to submit evidence. The court also explained that an unopposed summary-judgment motion cannot be granted automatically; the record must show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies

The court held that judicial review under Section 405(g) generally requires a claimant to complete four steps: an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and review by the Appeals Council. A Social Security claim generally becomes final for federal-court review only after the Appeals Council denies review of an Administrative Law Judge’s decision or decides the claim’s merits after that decision.

Nunez’s claim did not complete those steps. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed his hearing request because he failed to appear, and the record contained no evidence that he sought Appeals Council review. The court therefore found that Nunez had not obtained a final decision subject to judicial review and had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The court also considered whether the exhaustion requirement should be excused. It concluded that Nunez’s lawsuit sought the same benefits he had sought from the agency, so the issues were not separate from his administrative claim. Exhaustion would not be futile because a final agency decision and a developed written record would support more complete federal-court review. The court found no indication of irreparable harm and concluded that the complaint, even read liberally, did not raise a constitutional claim that would justify excusing exhaustion. The court also rejected any argument that wording in a hearing notice waived the exhaustion requirement.

Disposition

Judge Paul E. Davison granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.