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.

"Final decision" of the Secretary generally means the initial substantive decision of the Secretary on the benefits claim. 405(g) cannot be read to authorize judicial review of alleged abuses of agency discretion in refusing to reopen claims for social security benefits. This is so principally because the "final decision of the Secretary" refers to the initial substantive decision of the Secretary on the benefits claim. District Court was without jurisdiction to review dismissal of Rios' third claim for benefits when dismissal was based on grounds of res judicata and insufficient new evidence.

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.

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.