Filed: Dec. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN L. DEXTER, No. 18-35173 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05253-JPD v. MEMORANDUM* ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James P. Donohue, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted August 29, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and BYBEE
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN L. DEXTER, No. 18-35173 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05253-JPD v. MEMORANDUM* ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James P. Donohue, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted August 29, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and BYBEE,..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREN L. DEXTER, No. 18-35173
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05253-JPD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James P. Donohue, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 29, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,*** District Judge.
Karen Dexter appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge
for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
we affirm.
This is the second appeal to this Court involving the dismissal of plaintiff’s
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On September 30, 2013, this Court remanded
plaintiff’s case for a new hearing to consider plaintiff’s alternative grounds for
good cause to file a late request for hearing on her 2003 application for benefits.
See Dexter v. Colvin,
731 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2013). A new hearing was held on
December 11, 2014. The administrative law judge (ALJ) considered all of
plaintiff’s reasons for missing the deadline to file a request for a hearing:
unawareness of the deadline, serious illness, preoccupation with caring for her
elderly mother, and grief after her mother’s death. The ALJ examined each of the
reasons and found they were not supported by the record. The ALJ resolved all
reasonable doubts in plaintiff’s favor as required by Social Security Ruling (SSR)
91-5p, but found that she had not established good cause for missing the deadline
to request a new hearing. On November 27, 2015, the ALJ dismissed plaintiff’s
request for a hearing.
On appeal, plaintiff asserts the ALJ’s failure to comply with the Social
Security regulations violated her constitutional right to procedural due process.
We disagree and conclude that the ALJ correctly analyzed whether plaintiff had
established good cause for the late filing of her request for a hearing pursuant to 20
C.F.R. § 404.911. Additionally, the Appeals Council noted SSR 91-5p and found
2 18-35173
that the record did not show any evidence of mental incapacity which might have
constituted good cause for the late filing. Plaintiff also argues on appeal that the
ALJ failed to consider whether her original claim should have been reopened when
she reapplied for benefits in 2007, less than four years after she filed her original
claim. The ALJ’s decision considered both of plaintiff’s claims. The ALJ found
that the Appeals Council’s dismissal of plaintiff’s March 2008 request for a
hearing was undisturbed as it was based on the res judicata effect of the
reconsideration determination. We conclude that because the ALJ addressed both
of plaintiff’s applications, there was no issue of reopening which the ALJ was
required to address. We have also considered the other due process violations
alleged by plaintiff. We find them to be meritless.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-35173