IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
CATHY WALLIES o/b/o A.R.A.W. PLAINTIFF
v. No. 4:25-cv-00491-JM-ERE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Commissioner DEFENDANT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 8. Plaintiff
has responded. Doc. 9.
Defendant asserts that this case should be dismissed because it was filed more
than 65 days after the date on the Notice of Appeals Council Action (“Notice”).1 The
filing deadline presumes that the Notice was received within five days of its date,
but this five-day presumption can be overcome with “a reasonable showing to the
contrary.” 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c). Receipt “by either the individual or the
individual’s attorney, whichever occurs first, triggers the sixty-day limitations
period.” Bess v. Barnhart, 337 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2003).
1 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (A case must be commenced in federal district court “within sixty
days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the
Commissioner of Social Security may allow.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 (same); 20 C.F.R. § 404.901
(“Date you receive notice means 5 days after the date on the notice, unless you show us that you
did not receive it within the 5-day period.”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210 (same).
The Notice is dated March 12, 2025, which means, with five days for mailing,
the filing period expired on May 16, 2025. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 19,
2025. Doc. 2. Attempting to overcome the five-day presumption, Plaintiff asserts
that her lawyer “received the copy of the Appeals Council denial on March 24, 2025”
and attached a copy of the receipt-stamped Notice to her response. Doc. 9. However,
there is no indication of when Plaintiff, personally, received the Notice. Because the
filing period begins to run from receipt by either Plaintiff or her lawyer, whichever
is first, additional information is required before the pending motion can be resolved.
By Friday, August 1, 2025, Plaintiff must supplement the record with
information related to when she, personally, received the Notice from Defendant.
So Ordered 18 July 2025.
ZYV_.
MMA
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.