Huff v. Barnhart, No. 04-1168 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2005) Unpublished

In a per curiam decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the Commissioner refused to reopen the claimant's prior application for disability benefits. The decision is interesting in at least two respects. First, it follows oral argument, which, in Social Security appeals in the Fourth Circuit, is granted only about 10% of the time. Second, it cites a Kansas District Court opinion as authority for rejecting claimant's argument that the ALJ was bound by a statement he made during the hearing that indicated he would pay the case:

Even assuming that the ALJ's comments at the hearing could fairly be construed as a finding of disability, "the ALJ's written decision, not his questions at the hearing, control the findings subject to review." Woods v. Barnhart, No. 03-2592-KJV, 2004 U.S. District LEXIS 12969, at *22 (D. Kan. July 12, 2004). Thus, this argument for reopening under § 404.988(c)(8) is also without merit.

Although characteristically unpublished, this is the second Social Security opinion this year in which the Court has revealed the issue it considered and decided. Is this a small signal that Social Security cases may be moving out of the Fourth's substantive doghouse?