Syllabus SIMS v. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-9537. Argued March 28, 2000-Decided June 5, 2000 Petitioner applied for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. After a state agency denied her claims, she obtained a hearing before a Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who also denied her claims. Petitioner then requested review by the Social Security Appeals Council, which denied review. She next filed suit in the Federal District Court, contending that the ALJ erred in three ways. The District Court rejected her contentions, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over two of the contentions because they were not included in petitioner's request for review by the Appeals Council. Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 200 F. 3d 229, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, concluding that Social Security claimants who exhaust administrative remedies need not also exhaust issues in a request for review by the Appeals Council in order to preserve judicial review of those issues. Although administrative issue-exhaustion requirements are largely creatures of statute, there is no contention that any statute requires such exhaustion here. It is also common for an agency's regulations to require issue exhaustion in administrative appeals, but Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations do not. This Court has required issue exhaustion even in the absence of a statute or regulation, but the reason for doing so does not apply here. The desirability of a judicially imposed issue-exhaustion requirement depends on the degree to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding. See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 556. Where that proceeding is not adversarial, the reasons for a court to require issue exhaustion are much weaker than where the parties are expected to develop the issues themselves. Pp. 106-110. JUSTICE THOMAS, joined by JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG, concluded in Part II-B that the differences between courts and agencies are nowhere more pronounced than in Social Security proceedings, which are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. The ALJ's duty is to investigate the facts and develop the arguments Opinion of the Court both for and against granting benefits, and the Council's review is similarly broad. The regulations expressly provide that the SSA conducts the administrative review process in an informal, nonadversary manner. As the Council, not the claimant, has primary responsibility for identifying and developing the issues, the general issue-exhaustion rule makes little sense in this context. Pp. 110-112. JUSTICE O'CONNOR concluded that the SSA's failure to notify claimants of an issue exhaustion requirement is a sufficient basis for holding that such exhaustion is not required in this context. Requiring issue exhaustion is inappropriate here, where the SSA's regulations and procedures affirmatively suggest that specific issues need not be raised before the Appeals Council. Pp. 112-114. THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part II-B, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 112. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, post, p. 114. Sarah H. Bohr argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Chantal J. Harrington, Gary R. Parvin, and Jon C. Dubin. Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, William Kanter, and Robert D. Kamenshine.* JUSTICE THOMAS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, and an opinion with respect to Part II-B, in which JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join. A person whose claim for Social Security benefits is denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ) must in most cases, *Rochelle Bobroff, Michael Schuster, and Robert E. Rains filed a brief for the American Association of Retired Persons et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. Opinion of the Court before seeking judicial review of that denial, request that the Social Security Appeals Council review his claim. The question is whether a claimant pursuing judicial review has waived any issues that he did not include in that request. We hold that he has not. I In 1994, petitioner Juatassa Sims filed applications for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 622, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., and for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of that Act, 86 Stat. 1465, 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq. She alleged disability from a variety of ailments, including degenerative joint diseases and carpal tunnel syndrome. After a state agency denied her claims, she obtained a hearing before a Social Security ALJ. See generally Heckler v. Day, 467 U. S. 104, 106-107 (1984) (describing stages of review of claims for Social Security benefits). The ALJ, in 1996, also denied her claims, concluding that, although she did have some medical impairments, she had not been and was not under a "disability," as defined in the Act. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 423(d) (1994 ed. and Supp. III) and 1382c(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. III); Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U. S. 521, 524–526 (1990). Petitioner then requested that the Social Security Appeals Council review her claims. A claimant may request such review by completing a one-page form provided by the Social Security Administration (SSA)-Form HA-520-or "by any other writing specifically requesting review." 20 CFR § 422.205(a) (1999). Petitioner, through counsel, chose the latter option, submitting to the Council a letter arguing that the ALJ had erred in several ways in analyzing the evidence. The Council denied review. Next, petitioner filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. She contended that (1) the ALJ had made selective use of the record; (2) the questions the ALJ had posed to a vocational expert to determine petitioner's ability to work were defective because they omitted Opinion of the Court several of petitioner's ailments; and (3) in light of certain peculiarities in the medical evidence, the ALJ should have ordered a consultative examination. The District Court rejected all of these contentions. App. 74-84. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 200 F. 3d 229 (1998). That court affirmed on the merits with regard to petitioner's first contention. With regard to the second and third contentions, it concluded that, under its decision in Paul v. Shalala, 29 F. 3d 208, 210 (1994), it lacked jurisdiction because petitioner had not raised those contentions in her request for review by the Appeals Council. We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1018 (1999), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether a Social Security claimant waives judicial review of an issue if he fails to exhaust that issue by presenting it to the Appeals Council in his request for review. Compare Paul, supra, at 210; James v. Chater, 96 F. 3d 1341, 1343-1344 (CA10 1996), with Harwood v. Apfel, 186 F. 3d 1039, 1042-1043 (CA8 1999); Johnson v. Apfel, 189 F. 3d 561, 563-564 (CA7 1999).1 II The Social Security Act provides that "[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action" in federal district court. 42 U. S. C. §405(g). But the Act does not define "final decision," instead leaving it to the SSA to give meaning to that term through regulations. See §405(a); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 766 (1975). SSA regulations provide that, if the Appeals Council grants review of a claim, then the decision that the Council issues is the Com 1 We agree with the parties that, even were a court-imposed issueexhaustion requirement proper, the Fifth Circuit erred in treating it as jurisdictional. Cf. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 328 (1976). Opinion of the Court missioner's final decision. But if, as here, the Council denies the request for review, the ALJ's opinion becomes the final decision. See 20 CFR §§ 404.900(a)(4)–(5), 404.955, 404.981, 422.210(a) (1999).2 If a claimant fails to request review from the Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases. See $404.900(b); Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467, 482-483 (1986). In administrative-law parlance, such a claimant may not obtain judicial review because he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Salfi, supra, at 765-766. The Commissioner rightly concedes that petitioner exhausted administrative remedies by requesting review by the Council. Petitioner thus obtained a final decision, and nothing in §405(g) or the regulations implementing it bars judicial review of her claims. Nevertheless, the Commissioner contends that we should require issue exhaustion in addition to exhaustion of remedies. That is, he contends that a Social Security claimant, to obtain judicial review of an issue, not only must obtain a final decision on his claim for benefits, but also must specify that issue in his request for review by the Council. (Whether a claimant must exhaust issues before the ALJ is not before us.) The Commissioner argues, in particular, that an issue-exhaustion requirement is "an important corollary" of any requirement of exhaustion of remedies. Brief for Respondent 13. We think that this is not necessarily so and that the corollary is particularly unwarranted in this case. Initially, we note that requirements of administrative issue exhaustion are largely creatures of statute. Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 134 F. 3d 409, 412 (CADC 1998). Our cases addressing issue 2 Part 404 of 20 CFR (1999) applies to Title II of the Act. The regulations governing Title XVI, which can be found at 20 CFR pt. 416 (1999), are, as relevant here, not materially different. We will therefore omit references to the latter regulations. |