Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CV-85-3565-TJH. Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before: Jerome Farris, Edward Leavy, and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Trott.
The issue in this case is whether the Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services ("Appeals Council") may reopen a decision of an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") for errors of law pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.988, 404.989, 416.1488, and 416.1489 (1992), or whether reopening under these sections is limited to addressing errors of fact. The district court granted the Appellees motion for summary judgment and held the Appeals Council could reopen a final decision of an ALJ for errors of law under these sections. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). We affirm.
Appellants are three individuals, each of whom received favorable decisions from ALJs which were reversed by the Appeals Council when it reopened their cases for errors of law. Appellant Mines' first application for Title II and Social Security Insurance ("SSI") benefits was approved by an ALJ but later rejected by the Appeals Council, which reviewed the decision within 60 days pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.969, 404.970, 416.1469 and 416.1470. Mines did not appeal. Instead, he filed a second application for disability six months later - which is the subject of this appeal - and was found eligible by a different ALJ on June 25, 1984. The Appeals Council reopened this decision for "good cause" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a)(3) on September 25, 1984, three months after the ALJ decision. The ground for reopening was that the date of onset of disability established by the second ALJ was in direct contradiction of the Appeals Council decision previously rendered. The Appeals Council concluded that the second ALJ had no jurisdiction to establish a retroactive onset date which the Appeals Council had already rejected.
Appellant Howard received a favorable decision from an ALJ on March 31, 1983, awarding her benefits under Title II and SSI as a disabled child. On March 19, 1984, the Appeals Council reopened and vacated the ALJ's decision on the ground that the evidence before the ALJ was insufficient to establish that Howard met the statutory requirements. Thus, the Appeals Council remanded to a different ALJ for further findings. The second ALJ ruled against Howard on January 30, 1985, and the Appeals Council declined to grant her request for review.
Appellant Roberts was awarded disability benefits under both Title II and SSI, effective on March 14, 1980. He sought and obtained training through the state Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, and was able to begin work on June 1, 1982. The Appeals Council re-evaluated his disability status and determined it had ceased in January 1982 and that his period of entitlement to disability benefits ended in March 1982.
On July 30, 1982, an ALJ determined that Roberts was eligible for benefits through July 1982. The ALJ also held that May 1982 was the ninth month of a trial work period and that following the completion of the trial work period, he was entitled to an extended period of eligibility through August 1984. On June 27, 1985, nearly three years after the ALJ's ruling, the Appeals Council reopened the case because it alleged the ALJ had misinterpreted the pertinent regulations. Based on a correct interpretation of the regulations, the Appeals Council found Roberts' benefits ended in May 1982.
Appellants challenged the decisions of the Appeals Council in district court, arguing the Appeals Council did not have jurisdiction after 60 days from the date of the ALJ's decision to reopen the decisions of the ALJs for errors of law. The court concluded the Appeals Council did have jurisdiction. Appellants appeal the issue of whether the Appeals Council had jurisdiction to reopen the decisions of the ALJs for errors of law pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.988, 404.989, 416.1488 and 416.1489.
The circuits are split on this issue. We adopt the majority view that legal error may constitute good cause for reopening. Sheppard v. Sullivan, 285 U.S. App. D.C. 62, 906 F.2d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Fox v. Bowen, 835 F.2d 1159, 1163-64 (6th Cir. 1987); Munsinger v. Schweiker, 709 F.2d 1212, 1215-16 (8th Cir. 1983). Contra Gutierrez v. Bowen, 898 F.2d 307, 311 (2nd Cir. 1990); see Hale v. Sullivan, 934 F.2d 895, 897 (7th Cir. 1991). We conclude the Appeals Council correctly reopened, for errors of law, the final decisions of the ALJs in the cases before us.
The Department of Health and Human Services' regulations authorize the Appeals Council to initiate direct "review" of an ALJ's disability determination within sixty days of the date of a hearing decision or dismissal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.969 and 416.1469. The regulations expressly provide the Appeals Council may "review" a case within 60 days for errors of law. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970(a)(2) and 416.1470(a)(2).
The regulations, however, also authorize the Appeals Council to "reopen" a case after 60 days for, among other things, "good ...