Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Ervin E. Vance v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 42 F.3d 1387, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Ervin Vance appealed a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny his application for disability insurance benefits based on administrative res judicata. Vance had previously filed a claim in 1985 that was denied, and he did not appeal that denial. In 1992, he filed a new claim alleging the same onset date of disability. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the new claim based on res judicata, finding the evidence submitted was not materially different. Both the district court and appeals court affirmed, finding Vance's current claim involved the same facts and issues as the earlier denied claim.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Ervin E. Vance v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 42 F.3d 1387, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Ervin Vance appealed a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny his application for disability insurance benefits based on administrative res judicata. Vance had previously filed a claim in 1985 that was denied, and he did not appeal that denial. In 1992, he filed a new claim alleging the same onset date of disability. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the new claim based on res judicata, finding the evidence submitted was not materially different. Both the district court and appeals court affirmed, finding Vance's current claim involved the same facts and issues as the earlier denied claim.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 42 F.3d 1387 Docket: 94-1463

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which Ervin Vance appealed a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny his application for disability insurance benefits based on administrative res judicata. Vance had previously filed a claim in 1985 that was denied, and he did not appeal that denial. In 1992, he filed a new claim alleging the same onset date of disability. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the new claim based on res judicata, finding the evidence submitted was not materially different. Both the district court and appeals court affirmed, finding Vance's current claim involved the same facts and issues as the earlier denied claim.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    8 views4 pages

    Ervin E. Vance v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 42 F.3d 1387, 4th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Ervin Vance appealed a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny his application for disability insurance benefits based on administrative res judicata. Vance had previously filed a claim in 1985 that was denied, and he did not appeal that denial. In 1992, he filed a new claim alleging the same onset date of disability. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the new claim based on res judicata, finding the evidence submitted was not materially different. Both the district court and appeals court affirmed, finding Vance's current claim involved the same facts and issues as the earlier denied claim.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    42 F.

    3d 1387

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Ervin E. VANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health And Human
    Services,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 94-1463.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Oct. 3, 1994.
    Decided Dec. 23, 1994.

    Rose A. Cyrus, Huntington, WV, for Appellant.


    Charlotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel, Region III, Dorothea J. Lundelius,
    Division Chief, Margaret J. Krecke, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of
    the General Counsel, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
    SERVICES, Philadelphia, PA; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney,
    Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for
    Appellee.
    Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior
    United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by
    designation.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    Ervin Vance appeals the district court's order upholding the decision of the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to apply administrative res

    judicata and deny Vance's application for disability insurance benefits. We


    affirm.
    I.
    2

    Vance was born on May 30, 1944, and has a seventh grade education. He
    worked as a supply motorman in the coal mining industry from 1969 to 1972
    and as an ambulance owner/operator from 1972 to 1983. He first applied for
    disability insurance benefits on October 25, 1985, alleging that he had been
    disabled since November 1983 because of a back injury, a nervous condition,
    ulcers, tendinitis of the shoulder, a hernia, and a numb leg. This claim was
    denied initially on February 3, 1986, and on reconsideration on June 26, 1986.

    Vance requested and was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge
    (ALJ). On October 13, 1987, the ALJ denied Vance's application for benefits,
    which became the final decision of the Secretary when the Appeals Council
    denied Vance's request for a review on February 10, 1988. Vance filed a civil
    action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
    Virginia, which remanded the case to the Secretary.

    On October 17, 1989, an ALJ issued a recommended decision finding that


    Vance was not disabled before December 31, 1988, the date when his disability
    insured status expired. On March 11, 1991, the Appeals Council adopted the
    ALJ's decision, making it the final decision of the Secretary. Vance requested
    judicial review of the postremand decision; and on January 23, 1992, the
    district court adopted a Magistrate Judge's report that recommended affirming
    the Secretary's decision. Neither party had filed objections to the Magistrate
    Judge's report and Vance did not appeal the district court's order.

    On March 10, 1992, Vance filed his current application for disability insurance
    benefits, which was denied initially and on reconsideration. On June 8, 1992,
    he filed a request for a hearing before an ALJ and changed the date for the
    onset of his disability to November 15, 1983, the same date alleged in the
    earlier-denied claim. On October 29, 1992, Vance submitted medical records to
    the ALJ, which had not been presented with his first claim, concerning visual
    impairment of his left eye. These records included the office notes of Dr.
    Robert E. O'Connor, which showed that Vance had a cataract of the left eye
    that was surgically corrected in August 1984. On November 23, 1992, the ALJ
    found that the new evidence was not material and dismissed Vance's request for
    a hearing on the basis of res judicata. On February 8, 1993, the Appeals
    Council denied Vance's request for review of the dismissal.

    Vance sought judicial review of the Secretary's dismissal in the district court. A
    Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the court grant the
    Secretary's motion to dismiss Vance's claims. The district court adopted the
    Magistrate's report on March 17, 1994, over objections filed by Vance.

    II.
    7

    The Secretary may properly apply administrative res judicata to bar a claim
    only if it is the same as a claim denied earlier. McGowen v. Harris, 666 F.2d
    60, 65 (4th Cir.1981). When claims are the same, district courts lack
    jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) to review the Secretary's decision to
    apply administrative res judicata unless a constitutional objection is raised. Id.
    Because Vance did not raise a con stitutional objection to the Magistrate Judge's
    report, the district court only had to determine whether the two claims were the
    same.*

    The ALJ reviewed the medical records submitted by Vance and concluded that
    even though they represented new information of Vance's condition prior to the
    expiration of his insured status, this evidence was not material. The ALJ noted
    that Vance had not previously submitted evidence of visual impairment
    contributing to his alleged disability, perhaps because the records indicate that
    he has near normal vision in his right eye. The ALJ concluded that Vance's
    current claim involved the same facts, issues, and party as the earlier claim and
    was thus barred by res judicata.

    The district court performed its own review of the record before the court and
    concluded that the identity of Vance's claims was apparent as a matter of law.
    In addition to the reasons stated by the Secretary, the court noted that Vance did
    not mention a visual problem in his current complaint filed with the district
    court and that his attorney had somewhat downplayed the significance of
    Vance's alleged visual problems. See Memorandum Order 8-9, Mar. 17, 1994.
    The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision
    because Vance's current claim was the same as his previous claim.

    10

    We conclude that the district court conducted a proper inquiry under McGowen
    and that the record supports the Secretary's decision to apply administrative res
    judicata to Vance's current claim. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately before the Court and argument would
    not aid in the decisional process. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED

    The Secretary also treated Vance's current application as an implied request for
    reopening the Secretary's initial determination in 1986 of Vance's first claim.
    The district court concluded that Vance's first claim was not subject to
    reopening under 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.988-89. Because Vance did not file his
    application until more than six years after the previous decision and did not
    raise any constitutional challenges, we affirm the district court's finding that
    Vance's first claim was not subject to reopening

    You might also like