Coe v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Sandra E. Coe, proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the agency’s handling of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applications were denied, and Coe requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). She appeared at an April 12, 2018 hearing with Attorney Gabrielle Muller, but the ALJ adjourned the hearing because the medical record was largely incomplete.

The agency scheduled another hearing for July 26, 2018 and sent notice to Coe and Attorney Lori Lembeck. Coe also contacted the agency shortly before the hearing and confirmed that she intended to attend. Neither Coe nor her attorneys appeared. Coe later reported that she had been denied entry to the building because she had alcohol in her bag. The ALJ dismissed the hearing request on August 1, 2018, finding that Coe had not shown good cause for failing to appear and that there was also no explanation for her attorneys’ failure to attend.

The notice of dismissal gave Coe 60 days to ask the Appeals Council to review the dismissal. Her request was filed after that deadline. The Appeals Council gave her opportunities to provide evidence of good cause for the late filing, but it ultimately dismissed the request on October 21, 2019. Coe did not respond to the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the federal case.

Issues and legal framework

The court considered whether the Appeals Council’s dismissal for untimeliness was a final agency decision that could be reviewed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), even though Coe had not received an ALJ decision on the merits after a hearing. The court also considered whether it could review the matter through mandamus, an extraordinary court order requiring a government official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty.

The court discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Berryhill, which held that an Appeals Council dismissal for untimeliness can be reviewable under § 405(g) when it follows an ALJ decision on the merits. The court noted that Smith did not decide whether § 405(g) review is available when an ALJ dismisses a hearing request because the claimant failed to appear and the Appeals Council later dismisses an untimely request for review.

Court’s reasoning

The court agreed with decisions holding that this type of case does not present a reviewable final decision under § 405(g). The court reasoned that the statute requires a final decision made after a hearing and that, because Coe’s hearing request was dismissed, no merits decision resulted from a hearing. Although Coe had attended the earlier hearing, that hearing was adjourned without a ruling and therefore did not produce a merits decision.

The court also considered mandamus review even though Coe had not expressly requested it, because pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously. The court ruled that mandamus relief was unavailable. Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ could dismiss the hearing request if Coe failed to appear without good cause, and the ALJ had considered the required factors. The court also found that Coe had not explained why her representatives failed to appear.

The court further ruled that Coe had no clear right to have the Appeals Council accept her late request or order another hearing. The Appeals Council could dismiss an untimely request unless Coe showed good cause, and the record showed that she had been given multiple opportunities to provide such an explanation. The court found that she did not provide a sufficient reason for the late filing.

Disposition

Judge Paul E. Davison granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint. The clerk was directed to close the case. The court did not decide whether Coe was disabled or otherwise reach the merits of her applications for benefits.