Thomas George and Jenifer George v. Cypress Springs Property Owners Association

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, in appropriate circumstances, affirmative defense of exhaustion may be reviewed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
• holding that 14 exhaustion under § 405(g) is an issue that should be raised through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; a Rule 15 12(b)(1) motion would be appropriate only if the plaintiff had altogether failed to submit a claim 16 to the SSA
• observing that the “exhaustion requirement was designed to let [the] SSA process claims in accordance with its complex procedures and [to] apply its expertise before authorizing judicial review”
• observing that the exhaustion requirement is “designed to let [the] SSA process claims in accordance with its complex procedure and [to] apply its expertise before authorizing judicial review”
• determining that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that exhaustion would cause an irreparable injury because there was “no physical injury, much less irreparable injury, that would be suffered as a consequence of delayed payment”
• explaining that a failure to exhaust under § 405(g) “is not [a] jurisdictional” bar to suit, but exhaustion is “nonetheless . . . a mandatory requirement of the Social Security Act that may be excused only in a narrow set of circumstances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).