If good cause is found, then the claim for disability benefits can proceed as normal. However, if “good cause” is not found, then the claim will be dismissed. If the claim is not found the claim will be dismissed. Even if the local SSA office finds that “good cause” exists, an ALJ may override that decision and decide that good cause was not shown and dismiss the claim.
If the claim is dismissed by the ALJ, the claimant may appeal that decision to the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council decides that the ALJ did not error in dismissing the case, generally the case ends at that point. The Federal District Court, which had the legal authority to review a decision of the Commissioner regarding disability benefits, may only review those cases after there has been an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claim. Watters v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 656 F.2d 234, 236 (7th Cir.1980) (emphasis added); see also Johnson v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 974, 975 (7th Cir.1991) (emphasis added) (quoting Califano V. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977)).
Consequently, case law has been developed which suggests that a Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to review SSA’s determination not to extend the period for appeal is not subject to judicial review under § 405(g).
That said there are other legal theories that could be employed to legally invoke a Federal District Court’s jurisdiction to review a case in which an ALJ determined that good cause was not shown. These theories include a due process argument and an argument under theory of mandamus. These theories, while potentially viable are predicated upon a very unique set of facts.