U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1987

Delmar INGRAM-Appellant v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES-Appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided July 14, 1987 · Keith, Norris, Peck, Per Curiam

830 F.2d 67; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12995; 19 Soc. Serv. Rev. 103 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edgar Jerome Dew (argued), Goodman, Eden, Millender and Bedrosian, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant., Pam Thompson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Blanca Bianchi de la Torre (argued), Asst. Regional Counsel, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Blair v. SSA (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2021)
Acker v. Commissioner of Social Security (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2020)
Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security (6th Cir. 2018)
Suciu v. Barnhart (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 2005)
Glazer v. Commissioner of Social Security (6th Cir. 2004)
Bowens v. Barnhart (6th Cir. 2004)
Paul Runyon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (6th Cir. 1992)
Doris B. Luna v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (6th Cir. 1990)
Herman L. Melvin v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services (6th Cir. 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Secretary. The order had the effect of upholding a decision of the Secretary denying plaintiff’s request to re-open an earlier application, in order to extend the period over which benefits awarded him on his later application would be given retroactive effect.

The Supreme Court has noted that federal courts are without jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary refusing to reopen previously adjudicated claims, at least in the absence of a constitutional challenge. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). Simply couching in constitutional language what is in reality an argument, that the Secretary abused his discretion in refusing to re-open a claim, does not convert the argument into a colorable constitutional challenge. Gos *68 nell v. Secretary, 703 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1983).

Because we conclude that the Secretary did refuse to re-open the previous application, and that plaintiff has failed to raise a colorable constitutional challenge, the Secretary’s decision is not reviewable.

In addition, plaintiff is precluded from raising here, for the first time, his argument that he is raising a colorable constitutional challenge.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affimed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.