green
Positive treatment
9.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(SS) Caglia v. Commissioner of Social Security
(Doc. 1) Thus, it appears the statute of 25 limitations may have run on the request for review. 26 As the Ninth Circuit observed, “[a] petition to review a decision of the [Commissioner] must 27 be brought within the statutory time limit.” Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971). 28 Thus, courts have determined that where a claimant files an action even one day late, the statute of 1 limitations mandates a dismissal of the action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roderick del Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security
Since 21 the former standard is more demanding, it may sometimes be the case that (as here) the court will 22 accept a late-filed brief but not a late-filed complaint. 23 Courts have dismissed cases filed only days after the expiration of the statute of limitations. 24 See, e.g., Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971) (affirming dismissal of Social 25 26 3 Although § 405(g) uses the word “mailing,” a regulation provides that a civil action “must be instituted within 60 days after the Appeals Council’s notice . . . is received by the individual” and 27 that “the dat…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hamilton v. O'Malley
Cal. Aug. 29, 16 2014)); see Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971) (Ninth Circuit 17 Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claimant's petition 18 that was filed only two days after the 60-day period had expired); see also Atherton 19 v. Colvin, No. CV13-4870-AS, 2014 WL 580167 , at *2 (C.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Paul R. Ensey v. Elliott Richardson, Etc.
See Tate v. United States, 9 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 88, 89 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security
Wash. Dec. 18, 2015) (same); see also Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th 21 Cir. 1971) (finding action commenced two days late properly dismissed).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
(SS) Moles v. Commissioner of Social Security
See, e.g., Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 5 510 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming judgment in favor of Commissioner where the claimant missed the 6 statute of limitations by one day); see also Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9 th Cir. 1917) 7 (observing “[a] petition to review a decision of the [Commissioner] must be brought within the 8 statutory time limit,” and affirming dismissal of a Social Security complaint filed two days late); Street 9 v. Vose, 936 F.2d at 39 (claims filed beyond the statute of limitations are frivolous). 10 On the other hand, there are two exceptions to the statute…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carroll v. Saul
See, e.g., Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971) 19 (observing “[a] petition to review a decision of the [Commissioner] must be 20 brought within the statutory time limit,” and affirming the dismissal of a Social 2 1 Security complaint filed two days late); Whipp v. Weinberger, 505 F.2d 800 (6th 2 Cir. 1974) (ordering dismissal of action for filing complaint one day late); Fletcher 3 v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming judgment in favor of the 4 Commissioner where the claimant missed the statute of limitations by one day); 5 Davila v. Barnhart, 225 F. Supp.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
(SS) Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security
See, e.g., Tate v. 23 United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971) (observing “[a] petition to review a decision of the 24 [Commissioner] must be brought within the statutory time limit,” and affirming the dismissal of a 25 Social Security complaint filed two days late); Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2000) 26 (affirming judgment in favor of the Commissioner where the claimant missed the statute of limitations 27 by one day); Davila v. Barnhart, 225 F.Supp.2d 337, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (dismissing complaint 28 although filed “only one day late,” observing that “courts have…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
(SS)Williamson v. Commissioner of Social Security
See, e.g., Tate v. 22 United States, 437 F.2d 88, 89 (9th Cir. 1971) (affirming dismissal of Social Security complaint 23 filed two days late); Atherton v. Colvin, 2014 WL 580167 at *4 (C.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Willis v. Weinberger
See, e. g., Tate v. United States, 437 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1971); Small v. Gardner, 390 F.2d 186 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 984 , 89 S.Ct. 456 , 21 L.Ed.2d 444 (1968); Jamieson v. Folsom, 311 F.2d 506 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 487 , 83 S.Ct. 1868 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1963).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harry J. TATE, Jr., Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America and United States Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellees
v.
UNITED STATES of America and United States Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellees
25081.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 25, 1971.
John Nash, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Ely, Carter, Huf-Stedler.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Following an administrative proceeding on appellant’s claim for disability insurance benefits, appellant was notified of denial of his claim on July 19, 1968. The notice advised that he might obtain review of the order, pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), by filing a civil action against the Secretary in the district court, within 60 days from the date of notice.
Appellant commenced his action on September 19, 1968, two days late. The district court dismissed. We affirm.
The exclusive method for obtaining judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary is set forth in Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under that Section:
(g) Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. * * * [Emphasis supplied].
The district court was clearly correct in dismissing the action. A petition to review a decision of the Secretary must be brought within the statutory time limit. Jamieson v. Folsom (7 Cir. 1963) 311 F.2d 506, appeal dismissed and certi-orari denied, 374 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 1868, 10 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1963); Bomer v. Ribi-coff (6 Cir. 1962) 304 F.2d 427; See, Johnson v. Flemming (10 Cir. 1959) 264 F.2d 322.
Judgment affirmed.