Lola Mae Sheppeard v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 760 F.2d 1253 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Lola Mae Sheppeard v. Margaret M. Heckler, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 760 F.2d 1253 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Charlotte Taylor-Tillotson v. Commissioner of Social Security (ca11, 2017-06-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charlotte Taylor-Tillotson v. Commissioner of Social Security
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
While we’ve previously deemed it improper for an ALJ to consider issues not raised or argued by a claimant, Sheppeard v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1253, 1254 (11th Cir. 1985), the Supreme Court has said more recently that the ALJ has a duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 31 soc.sec.rep.ser. 313, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15742a Doris Myers v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services of the United States, Carolyn L. Grimes v. Louis W. Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services of the United States, Althea D. Parker v. Louis W. Sullivan, as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mary Cohen v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Compare, e.g., Melkonyan v. Heckler, 895 F.2d 556 (9th Cir.1990) (application for EAJA attorney's fees must be filed within 30 days after the Secretary's final decision on remand awarding claimant full benefits); Watson v. Sullivan, 735 F.Supp. 971, 973-74 (D.Ore.1990) (same); Wagaman v. Bowen, 698 F.Supp. 187, 189-90 (D.S.D.1988) (same) with, e.g., Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 747 F.2d 878, 884-85 (3d Cir.1984) (application need not be filed until after district court issues final judgment approving of Secretary's remand decision and dismissing case); Guthrie v. Schweiker,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Myers v. Sullivan
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Brief of Appellee, at 9 (citing Wagaman v. Bowen, 698 F.Supp. 187, 189 (D.S.D.1988), Colon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 877 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir.1989), and Sheppeard v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1253, 1254 (11th Cir.1985)). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lola Mae SHEPPEARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
84-8857.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 21, 1985.
760 F.2d 1253
Kenneth G. Levin, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant., Amy D. Levin, V. Anne Edwards, Asst. U.S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Fay, Anderson, Gibson.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is a Social Security disability case in which the Secretary determined that there had been an overpayment of benefits to the[*1254] claimant. The basis for the overpayment decision was that the claimant had entered into a common-law marriage under the law of Georgia, and that her common-law husband’s income was therefore attributable to her. Claimant challenges the Secretary’s finding that a common-law marriage exists and, having exhausted her administrative remedies, an action for review was brought in federal district court. The district court upheld the decision of the Secretary and claimant appeals.

We affirm that part of the district court’s order upholding the finding of the Secretary that a valid common-law marriage existed and that claimant had therefore received an overpayment. [1] We vacate, however, that part of the order which addresses the issue of waiver. The question of waiver was never raised or argued by the claimant. It was therefore improper for the Administrative Law Judge to consider that issue, and likewise improper for the district court to concur in the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that claimant was at fault and thus not entitled to a waiver. In fact both the Appeals Council and the federal magistrate recognized that waiver was not in issue. Because the decision of the Appeals Council is in effect the final decision of the Secretary, see e.g. Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1388 (11th Cir.1982), it was both improper and inconsistent for the Secretary to urge the district court to affirm that which the Appeals Council had already ruled was not in issue.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part.

1

. We do so without an opinion under Circuit Rule 25.