Bowen v. City of New York
476 U.S. 467 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 60-day statutory time limit for seeking judicial review of a Social Security disability determination is subject to equitable tolling, and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies may be judicially waived, particularly where the government's secretive conduct prevented claimants from knowing about a violation of their rights.
Facts:
- The Social Security Administration (SSA) used a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine eligibility for disability benefits.
- From approximately 1978 to 1983, the SSA implemented a covert, internal policy specifically for claimants with mental impairments.
- This secret policy presumed that any claimant whose mental condition did not meet or equal the severity of a specific 'Listing of Impairments' automatically retained the capacity for at least unskilled work.
- This presumption effectively eliminated the required individualized assessment of a claimant's residual functional capacity (steps four and five of the evaluation), leading to routine denials of benefits.
- The SSA enforced this unpublished policy through internal memoranda and by returning cases to state agencies for correction if the policy was not followed.
- Because the policy was clandestine, numerous claimants with severe mental impairments were denied benefits without knowing the true, illegal basis for the agency's decision.
- Unaware that the SSA was violating its own regulations, many affected claimants either allowed the 60-day period for filing a lawsuit to expire or failed to complete all stages of the administrative appeal process.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of New York and others filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- After a trial, the District Court found that the Secretary had used an illegal, covert policy and certified a class.
- The certified class included claimants who had failed to seek judicial review within the 60-day statutory period and those who had not exhausted their administrative remedies.
- The Secretary (petitioner) appealed the class certification and interim relief order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the 60-day limit was equitably tolled and that waiver of the exhaustion requirement was proper.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Secretary's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have jurisdiction to include in a class action claimants who did not seek judicial review within the statutory 60-day period or who failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, when challenging a systemic, undisclosed, and illegal agency policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes. A federal district court has jurisdiction over such claimants because the principles of equitable tolling and waiver of exhaustion apply. The 60-day requirement to seek judicial review is not a jurisdictional bar but a statute of limitations that can be tolled, especially when the government's own secretive conduct prevents claimants from discovering the violation of their rights. Similarly, the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies can be waived by the court when a claimant's legal challenge is collateral to their substantive claim for benefits and where requiring exhaustion would be futile and cause irreparable harm. Here, the SSA's clandestine policy was a system-wide procedural irregularity, making exhaustion futile for claimants who were unaware of it. Furthermore, the trauma of the appeal process for mentally ill claimants constituted irreparable harm, satisfying the conditions for judicial waiver of exhaustion established in Mathews v. Eldridge.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts administrative law by affirming that procedural requirements like statutes of limitation and exhaustion of remedies are not absolute, especially in the face of governmental misconduct. It establishes a strong precedent that an agency's use of a 'secretive' or 'clandestine' illegal policy can justify judicial intervention to excuse claimants' failure to comply with these procedural rules. The ruling serves as a crucial check on agency power, preventing agencies from benefiting from their own undisclosed, unlawful practices. For future class actions against government agencies, Bowen provides a powerful tool for including individuals who, through no fault of their own, were unaware of the basis for their legal claims.
Unlock the full brief for Bowen v. City of New York