Karen Dexter v. Carolyn W. Colvin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that procedural due process required the agency to address the claimant’s facially legitimate reason for filing a late social security appeal
• holding that district court has jurisdiction to consider colorable claim of denial of due process in Commissioner’s discretionary ruling
• holding that decision on hearing request is non-final and not generally reviewable unless claimant raises col-orable constitutional claim
• holding that dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo
• holding that due process entitles a Social Security claimant to a meaningful opportunity to be heard or to seek reconsideration of an adverse benefits determination
• explaining that the appeals council’s decision constitutes the Commissioner’s final decision that may be subject to judicial review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).