USCA1 Opinion

December 8, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________
No. 94-1484
YURI M. ROTHMAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________

Yuri M. Rothman on brief pro se.

_______________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, Charlene A. Stawic
________________
___________________
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Donna McCarthy, Assist
______________
Regional Counsel, United States Department of Health and Hu
Services, Randolph W. Gaines,
Acting Chief Counsel for Soc
____________________
Security, John M.
Sacchetti, Chief,
Retirement Survivors
____________________
Supplemental Assistance Litigation Branch, and Mark S. Ledfo
_______________
Attorney, United States Department of Health and Human Services,
brief for appellee.
____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

Claimant

Yuri Rothman seeks

to challenge

various

administrative

entitlement to
the cryptic
appeal,

finding,

To

the

being

raised

extent claimant

this

that

he was

claim

jurisdiction.

was

The

request for review

Appeals

Given

below and

are not

for

the

Law Judge (ALJ) in a

between 1979

dismissed

Council rejected

of the ALJ's decision after

and

for

lack

his

untimely

of

finding that

he had failed to establish the requisite good cause.

been

on

readily

is challenging

not disabled

properly

his

benefits.

submissions, both

reached by the Administrative

1990 decision,
1984,

his

precise issues

decipherable.

regarding

Social Security disability

nature of

the

determinations

As has

widely held, such a dismissal is not a "final decision"

the purposes

reviewable

of

42 U.S.C.

in federal court.

405(g)

See,
___

and

thus is

not

e.g., Bacon v. Sullivan,

____ _____
________

969 F.2d 1517, 1519-21 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing cases).

To the extent claimant
that

he

was

ineligible

September 1984 due to

status,
ground.

his

claim was

The district

is challenging the ALJ's finding

for

disability

benefits

the earlier expiration of

subject
court, in

to

dismissal

after

his insured
on the

dismissing this

same

claim for

lack of jurisdiction, did so without prejudice--apparently in

the belief that it was
action.

the subject of pending administrative

The record reveals, however, that the

this matter in his

1990 decision.

-3-

Since the

ALJ addressed
government has

not expressed any concern on the point, we leave the judgment

as

it stands

and mention

the matter

only for

purposes of

clarity.
Finally, claimant challenges
received,

and

was

obligated

benefits that were "overpaid."

the

existence and

amount

to

the determination that

repay,

some

$24,000

he
in

To the extent he is disputing

of such

overpayment, this

claim

arguably was subject to dismissal with prejudice as well; the

record

reveals that

the ALJ

addressed these matters

in an

intervening 1993 decision from which claimant filed no appeal

(a

decision which

attention
Secretary's

neither party

of the district court).

recent

decision

to

apparently brought
In any
waive

to the

event, given the

repayment

of

such

benefits, this matter is now moot.

The judgment is affirmed.
The motion to supplement
________________________________________________________
record is allowed.
__________________

-4-