A decision that a claimant lacks the necessary quarters of coverage can be reopened only under certain limited circumstances. The decision not to reopen a claim is not subject to judicial review absent a constitutional claim.

Supports judicial review of reopening decisions.

Where there is a colorable constitutional claim, it is error for district court to dismiss appeal of denial of reopening for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The denial of a request to reopen an application for disability benefits is ordinarily not reviewable in federal court, although an exception to this jurisdictional bar exists in "rare instances" where a colorable constitutional claim has been presented.

ALJ allowed to rely on medical advisor's opinion in the face of contradictory findings. Claimant's burden at Step 4 includes proving the particular demands of past work that she cannot perform. Secretary allowed to rely on medical advisor's opinion that the treadmill exercise test was acceptable. Treating physician's opinion not to be accorded greater weight.

Absent a colorable constitutional claim not present here, a district court does not have jurisdiction to review the Secretary's discretionary decision not to reopen an earlier adjudication. Appeal barred by res judicata where, even though claimant's second application was not identical to the first and additional medical reports were submitted, the claim for disability in both cases was based on essentially the same condition.

A claimant who was earlier denied at reconsideration, and then filed a new claim but presented no new evidence, cannot get a hearing and/or court review. Res judicata operates even if earlier decision was below hearing level.

Califano v. Sanders, (430 U.S. 99 [1977]) foreclosed judicial review of reopening decision absent a constitutional claim. Claimant's 1973 claim was properly dismissed on res judicata grounds, since the claim was identical to one heard and denied in 1965, after claimant's eligibility for benefits expired. Claimant's contention that his condition had deteriorated after his eligibility lapsed does not affect the finality or validity of the prior determination.

Raises, but does not resolve, the issue of whether a claimant's mental disability should relieve him of the time limitations on reopening.

A dismissal of a hearing request on res judicata grounds, where the current claim has the same factual basis as the earlier decision, is not reviewable. A purely discretionary hearing held for purposes of receiving allegedly new and material evidence is not a hearing within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g). Claimant had the burden to show that his disability existed prior to his date last insured. Court reviews grant of summary judgment de novo. In social security disability cases, summary judgment procedure is not an invitation to the claimant to contradict the contents of that record or to introduce new or additional evidence. Reopenings are permitted for "good cause," if new and material evidence is presented. Absent a colorable constitutional claim, a district court does not have jurisdiction to review SSA's discretionary decision not to reopen an earlier adjudication.