Mitchael v. Colvin, No. 14-3220 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs seek to represent a class of dual status National Guard technicians who had their benefits determined prior to the court's issuance of Petersen v. Astrue and would like to have their benefits readjusted to take advantage of the decision to avoid application of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's decision to reject the application of mandamus jurisdiction where the district court held that there is no clear, nondiscretionary duty on behalf of the SSA to apply the Peterson decision to plaintiffs. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a colorable constitutional claim on equal protection grounds that would justify the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(g)’s jurisdictional limitations. Plaintiffs’ due process claim also does not support application of an exception to 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case. In this action plaintiffs, dual status National Guard technicians living in Eighth Circuit states who had their Social Security benefits determined prior to the court's decision in Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2011) and reduced pursuant to the Windfall Elimination Provision, sought to have their benefits adjusted to take advantage of the decision; the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction as it did not have mandamus jurisdiction since the plaintiffs cannot establish that there is a clear non-discretionary duty of the Commissioner to reconsider their benefits award; neither plaintiffs' due process nor equal protection claims justified the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g)'s jurisdictional limitations.
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.