Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-09274
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Gorenstein granted dismissal because Thomas did not show that a reviewable final decision existed.
Kim A. Thomas's lawsuit was dismissed, and the Commissioner of Social Security obtained an order granting the motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
What happened
Kim A. Thomas applied for Social Security benefits in 2014. After her claim was denied and an earlier related lawsuit upheld the denial, Thomas filed this new lawsuit claiming that another application had been denied in 2020.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked authority to hear the case. Thomas did not respond. The Commissioner submitted Social Security Administration records stating that Thomas had filed no applications other than those filed in 2014, and Thomas did not provide the alleged 2020 decisions or Appeals Council letter.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the motion to dismiss. He ruled that federal law allows court review only of a final decision by the Commissioner, and Thomas had not shown that such a 2020 decision existed. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and close the case.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-09274
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- May 13, 2021
Background
Kim A. Thomas applied for Social Security benefits under both Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act on July 22, 2014. The applications were denied, and Thomas requested a hearing only as to the Title XVI denial. After a hearing and an appeal, the Commissioner of Social Security issued a final decision denying her claim. In a prior related proceeding, the court upheld that determination on August 18, 2020, and judgment was entered the same day.
Thomas then filed this lawsuit, alleging that an administrative law judge had denied a claim in 2020 and that the Appeals Council had sent her a letter affirming that decision. The complaint did not include the alleged administrative law judge decision or Appeals Council letter. The Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning that the court lacked legal authority to hear the case. Thomas did not respond.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that Thomas had the burden of showing that the court had jurisdiction. On a motion challenging subject-matter jurisdiction, the court could consider evidence outside the complaint. Federal law permits a district court to review a Social Security determination only when there is a final decision by the Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted a declaration from a Social Security Administration employee stating that agency records showed Thomas had filed no applications other than the applications filed on July 22, 2014.
Although Thomas alleged that she was challenging a 2020 final decision, the court found that she had presented no evidence that such a decision existed. The court therefore concluded that the statutory requirement of a final decision was not met and that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint, close the case, and mail Thomas a copy of the order. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.