An Appeals Council dismissal for lateness can feel like the end of a disability case. In Smith v. Berryhill, decided in 2019, the Supreme Court held that an Appeals Council timeliness dismissal after an ALJ hearing on the merits qualifies for judicial review. Access to court does not, by itself, establish a right to benefits.
The dismissal that reached the Court
Ricky Lee Smith sought Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. After an ALJ hearing and an unfavorable decision, his attorney said he sent a timely request for Appeals Council review. The agency reported that it had no record of receiving the letter. When a copy arrived later, the Appeals Council treated the request as untimely, found no good cause and dismissed it.
The lower courts concluded that this dismissal was not a final decision reviewable under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Smith had received an ALJ hearing on the merits, and the Appeals Council’s dismissal ended the administrative process. In that setting, the dismissal was a final decision made after a hearing within the statute’s meaning.
The Court reversed and remanded. It did not decide that Smith’s original request had been timely, resolve the parties’ disagreement about mailing and receipt, or determine that he was disabled. Those were separate questions from whether the dismissal could receive judicial scrutiny.
Preserve the evidence about timing
The procedural record matters: the ALJ decision, its receipt date, the review request, any acknowledgment and proof of submission. Preserve correspondence about an extension or good cause too. A copy of a letter and evidence that it was submitted may answer different questions.
Smith does not make a deadline optional. It allows review of the agency’s timeliness determination under the circumstances the Court addressed. Whether a request was late, whether good cause existed and whether the agency abused its discretion still require analysis of the actual record.
There is also a separate time limit for seeking federal review after the final agency action. Someone who receives a dismissal should not assume that arguing with the agency protects that deadline. The notice and applicable rules should be reviewed promptly, with any request for more time assessed on its own terms.
Review usually begins with the dismissal
The Court explained that, in the ordinary case, a reviewing court should examine the procedural ground for dismissal. If that ground cannot stand, the usual next step is remand so the agency can address remaining substantive issues. Although the court may have jurisdiction to reach the merits, the agency normally deserves the first opportunity to complete its review.
The holding concerns an ALJ hearing on the merits followed by an Appeals Council timeliness dismissal. The Court left other situations unresolved, including some dismissals before any ALJ hearing. Refusal to reopen an already-final claim presents another distinct issue.
Smith preserves an opportunity to challenge a procedural mistake. Keep the questions separate: Was the dismissal lawful, what process should follow, and does the evidence establish disability? A court’s ability to hear the case does not itself answer them.
Source: Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 471 (2019).
Learn more about Feden Law Group’s disability practice. If you need help assessing a denial or appeal, you may schedule an initial consultation with an attorney.
You can also explore the FLG Claim Analyst (Beta).
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it or requesting a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship.