Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealhearingregulationjudicial review

appeal

Related Cases

Glazer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 92 Fed.Appx. 312, 2004 WL 551477

Facts

Madra Glazer filed her original application for social security disability insurance benefits in September 1989, which was denied without appeal. After filing a second application in June 1998, she was notified in December 1998 that she met the medical requirements for benefits but was still under review for nonmedical requirements. Nearly ten years after her original denial, Glazer requested reconsideration, which was ultimately denied by an ALJ who found no clerical error and that the request was outside the allowable time frame for reopening the case.

Madra Glazer filed her original application for social security disability insurance benefits in September 1989, which was denied without appeal.

Issue

Did the district court err in dismissing Glazer's request to reopen her prior social security disability benefits claim based on her ten-year delay and the lack of good cause?

Rule

A request to reopen a prior determination must be made within four years of the initial decision, and good cause must be established to excuse any delay. Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision not to reopen a claim is limited to final decisions made after a hearing.

A request to reopen a prior determination must be made within four years of the initial decision, and good cause must be established to excuse any delay.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining Glazer's ten-year delay in seeking to reopen her original application. It found that she did not provide sufficient evidence to establish good cause for this delay, nor did she demonstrate that the Commissioner had prevented her from filing an appeal. The court noted that the ALJ's decision not to reopen the case was not subject to judicial review under the relevant regulations.

The court applied the rule by examining Glazer's ten-year delay in seeking to reopen her original application.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Glazer's request to reopen her prior claim, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Glazer's request to reopen her prior claim.

Who won?

The Commissioner of Social Security prevailed in the case because the court found that Glazer failed to establish good cause for her delay and that the request to reopen was outside the permissible time frame.

The Commissioner of Social Security prevailed in the case because the court found that Glazer failed to establish good cause for her delay.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Stafford v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 1696 (Mem), 212 L.Ed.2d 593

Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 60 S.Ct. 355, 84 L.Ed. 406, 40-1 USTC P 9160, 23 A.F.T.R. 800, 1940-1 C.B. 127

Lusthaus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue., 326 U.S. 702, 66 S.Ct. 48 (Mem), 90 L.Ed. 414

Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 149, 85 L.Ed. 81, 40-2 USTC P 9788, 24 A.F.T.R. 1063, 1940-2 C.B. 209

Roth v. Commissioner of Corrections, 759 N.W.2d 224