Mary Outlaw v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart , 40 F. App'x 330 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-1367
    ___________
    Mary Outlaw,                         *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                             * District Court for the
    * Western District of Arkansas.
    Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,   *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Social Security Administration,      *
    *
    Appellee.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 5, 2002
    Filed: July 9, 2002
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Mary Outlaw appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing for lack of
    jurisdiction her complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability
    insurance benefits. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
    consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
    The Commissioner rejected Outlaw’s 1997 benefits claim, finding that it was
    by then too late to reopen a 1989 adverse determination, and that administrative res
    judicata barred consideration of the new application. After Outlaw sought judicial
    review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the district court determined that it lacked
    jurisdiction to review the propriety of the Commissioner’s res judicata-based denial.
    On appeal, Outlaw argues that giving res judicata effect to her 1989 application was
    inappropriate and a denial of due process because (1) the file concerning the 1989
    determination has not been located, (2) the Social Security Administration (SSA)
    constructively reopened the 1989 determination by considering her present
    application on the merits, (3) new and material evidence was submitted in connection
    with the present application, and (4) she did not receive a hearing in connection with
    the 1989 determination.
    After carefully reviewing the record, see Boock v. Shalala, 
    48 F.3d 348
    , 351
    & n.2 (8th Cir. 1995) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court
    that it lacked jurisdiction. This court has recognized only two exceptions to the
    general rule precluding judicial review of the Commissioner’s decisions denying
    applications on the basis of administrative res judicata. See Yeazel v. Apfel, 
    148 F.3d 910
    , 911-12 (8th Cir. 1998). We conclude that neither exception applies here. First,
    we do not believe that the Commissioner could constructively reopen Outlaw’s 1989
    determination. See King v. Chater, 
    90 F.3d 323
    , 325 (8th Cir. 1996) (no constructive
    reopening may occur after time period for reopening has elapsed under regulations);
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404.988(b)-(c), 416.1488(c) (2001) (setting forth applicable time
    periods for reopening). Second, Outlaw has not presented a colorable constitutional
    claim. See 
    Boock, 48 F.3d at 352
    . The existence of a 1989 adverse determination--
    despite the missing file--was supported by the record as a whole, and Outlaw was
    given an opportunity to present any conflicting evidence. See Dusenberry v. United
    States, 
    122 S. Ct. 694
    , 699 (2002) (due process analysis). Further, due process did
    not require the Commissioner to hold a hearing on the 1989 denial before giving it
    preclusive effect, see 
    Yeazel, 148 F.3d at 912
    (recognizing preclusive effect of
    -2-
    unappealed SSA determinations issued without hearing; claimant cannot complain
    of due process violation from lack of hearing if she elected not to pursue one), or to
    consider new evidence some eight years after the 1989 determination.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-