Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2011cv06204 - Document 12 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's 7 Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/19/2012) c/m with unpublished decisions by chambers. (Fwd. for Judgment) (Galeano, Sonia)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- X REUBEN RAMOS, r Plaintiff, II Civ.6204{BMC) flO~ FILED \~'r' -against- f'1f.,/ IN ClERK'S OFHCE MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. US DISTRICT COURT C ,; NY *JUN201011 * Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------·------ X \11' BAOOKLYN OFFICE COGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff, appearingpru .~e, brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the determination of an Administrative Law Judge ("ALl") that he is not disabled. Before the Court is the Commissioner of Social Security's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's motion is granted and this case is dismissed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a Title II application for Social Security benefits on November 3, 2004, alleging that he became disabled on October 1, 1996. due to a nervous condition, headaches. neck pain, and a prostate problem. By decision dated September 13, 2006, an ALJ denied plaintiff's claim because he found that plaintiff was not disabled on or before his date la.st insured. The Appeals Council denied plaintifrs request for review, and plaintiff filed a civil action in this Court on November 27, 2007. By Memorandum Decision and Order dated July 17, 2008, 1 granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Ramos v. Comrn'r of Soc. Sec., No. 07-CV-4967 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2008). Plaintiff filed another application for disability insurance benefits on April 15, 2009. This application was denied ten days later because it concerned the same issues and time period that were considered in plaintiffs earlier claim. Plaintiff requested reconsideration, and by Notice of Disapproved Claim dated June 29,2009, the Social Security Administration {"SSA") informed plaintiff that the initial determination was correct and that his application was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff filed a request for hearing on July 2, 2009. On June 23,2011, the ALJ dismissed plaintiffs request for hearing on the basis of res judicara. Plaintiff requested Appeals Council review of the AU's Order of Dismissal on July 5, 2011. On October II, 2011, the Appeals Council denied plaintiffs request for review. Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking judicial review. DISCUSSION Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) is proper ''when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate [the case]." Makarova v. United States, 201 F.Jd 110, I 13 (2d Cir. 2000). The plaintiff has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. (citing Malik v. Meissner, 82 F.Jd 560, 562 (2d Cir. 1996)). When a plaintiff proceeds prose, this Court affords his complaint "special solicitude" and interprets it to raise "the strongest claims that it suggests.., Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.Jd 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011). Judicial review of the Commissioner's adjudications of claims arising under Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act") is provided for and limited by 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h). ' According to § 405(g), judicial review is authorized only after a "final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing.'' Accord Califano v. Sanders. 430 U.S. 99, 108, 97 s. Ct. 980 (1977) (section 405(g) "clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action''). Two basic requirements must therefore be satisfied for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over a Social Se<:urity appeal: I.) the plaintiff must have been afforded an administrative hearing; and 2.) the Commissioner's decision must have been '·final" within the meaning of the Act. See id. Both requirements are unsatisfied here. With respect to the first requirement, plaintiff was not afforded an administrative hearing on his instant claim. Under the Act. a petition to reopen a prior final decision may be "denied without a hearing." !d. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) (1970 ed.)). Pursuant to this authority, the ALJ detennined that no hearing was necessary on plaintiffs new claim because the claim was barred by res judicata. This detennination rendered plaintiffs complaint unrevicy,11ble by this Court. See Katsoulakis v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-0081, 2011 WL 3877080, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2011) ("'When there was no hearing and determination of the merits by a final de<:ision, there is no final decision for the court to review.- _,(quoting Plagianos v. Schweiker, 571 F. Supp. 495,497 (S.D.N.Y. 1983))). With respect to the second requirement, "the Commissioner's decision not to reopen a prior determination is not a final decision for purposes of§ 405(g) and thus is generally unreviey,ab1e even if there was a hearing in the case." Byam v_ Barnh~ 336 F.Jd 172, 180 (2d Cir. 2003). Although plaintiff has not met either of§ 405(g)'s requirements, the Second Circuit has held that courts may nevertheless review the Commissioner's decision not to reopen a disability application under two limited exceptions: "where the Commissioner has constructively reopened the case and where the claimant has been denied due process." !d. A case is deemed 3 "consuuctively reopened" when the ALJ "reviews the entire record and renders a decision on the merits." hL That did not occur here; this exception therefore does not apply. Plaintiff also does not challenge the Commissioner's decision on constitutional grounds. Even reading plaintiffs prose complaint to raise the best possible claims, this Court finds no indication of the'kind of due process issues that justify reviewing an ALJ's decision despite a plaintiffs failure to satisfy § 405(g). See.~. Hatcher v. Barnhart, No. 06-CV-999, 2006 WL 3196849, at *3-5 (E.D.N. Y. Nov. 4, 2006) (inadequate notice of a hearing can raise colorable constitutional claim). CONCLUSION The Commissioner's motion is granted and this case is dismissed. J<__ SO ORDERED. / U.S.D.J. Dated: Brookl}'TI, New York June 19,2012 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
