Delmar INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 830 F.2d 67 (6th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Delmar INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sec'y OF HEALTH & HUMAN Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 830 F.2d 67 (6th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Blair v. SSA (kyed, 2021-03-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blair v. SSA
E.D. Ky. · 2021 · confidence medium
Sec., 92 F. App’x 312, 314 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ingram v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 830 F.2d 67, 67-68 (6th Cir.1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acker v. Commissioner of Social Security
W.D. Mich. · 2020 · confidence medium
“Simply couching in constitutional language what is in reality an argument, that the [Commissioner] abused his discretion in refusing to re-open a claim, does not convert the argument into a colorable constitutional challenge.” Ingram v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 830 F.2d 67, 67-68 (6th Cir. 1987). 8 2.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Suciu v. Barnhart
M.D. Tenn. · 2005 · confidence medium
Ingram v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 830 F.2d 67, 67-68 (6th Cir.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Glazer v. Commissioner of Social Security
6th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Ingram v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 830 F.2d 67, 67-68 (6th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul Runyon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109 (1977) (commenting on the relationship between a colorable constitutional claim and § 205(g) jurisdiction); see also Blacha v. Secretary of HHS, 927 F.2d 228, 231 (6th Cir.1990) (a court may not review a refusal to reopen an earlier application for benefits unless there is a constitutional challenge); Ingram v. Secretary of HHS, 830 F.2d 67, 67 (6th Cir.1987) (the use of constitutional language to dress up a claim of abuse of discretion in refusing to reopen an application does not create a colorable constitutional challenge). 7 In the case at bar Mr.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doris B. Luna v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Moreover, even if Luna's "due process" claim were to be considered to have been raised in a timely manner, it does not constitute a "colorable constitutional challenge." Ingram v. Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 830 F.2d 67, 68 (6th Cir.1987) (per curiam). 8 Luna also argues that the bar of res judicata does not attach unless a hearing was held in the prior proceeding.
cited Cited "see" Bowens v. Barnhart
6th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ingram v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 830 F.2d 67, 67-68 (6th Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
19 soc.sec.rep.ser. 103, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 17,591 Delmar Ingram
v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services
86-1705.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jul 14, 1987.
830 F.2d 67
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.
Keith, Norris, Peck, Per Curiam.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
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.