Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Kildare v. Saenz
No. 01-17464 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55216
Description
Suit Alleging Improper Evaluations of Disability Applications Properly Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, Ninth Circuit Says
Abstract
On the grounds that plaintiff-appellants did not exhaust their
administrative remedies, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of a class action alleging that California state officials
systematically disregarded federal regulations when they initially
evaluated applications for disability insurance and Supplemental
Security Income. Plaintiff-appellant individuals who had
disabilities and were initially denied disability benefits sued
officials at the Social Security Administration and its Center for
Disability and California’s Department of Social Services and
Disability Adult Programs Division in district court. They claimed
that state defendants systematically failed to develop and gave
insufficient weight to claimants’ medical records, improperly
based disability determinations on consultative examinations that
did not meet federal standards, and issued inadequate
denial-of-benefit letters. They claimed that federal defendants did
not adequately oversee state defendants. The district court
dismissed plaintiff-appellants’ suit claiming violations of
their federal due process and equal protection rights. The Ninth
Circuit concluded that waiver of the exhaustion requirement of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) was not appropriate here because
plaintiff-appellants’ claims were not collateral to their
claims for benefits. Plaintiff-appellants did not identify a policy
requiring state defendants to disregard the regulations but alleged
irregularities in individual cases. State defendants’
liability for the alleged errors must be determined in the context
of each plaintiff-appellant’s proceeding before the state
agency. Thus their claims were inextricably intertwined with their
benefit claims, and administrative review could remedy the alleged
errors.
