## Facts

- The Social Security Administration administers disability benefits under SSDI and SSI using a five-step sequential evaluation process set by regulation.
- A class of New York claimants with serious mental impairments, along with organizational plaintiffs, challenged an internal, undisclosed agency policy governing disability determinations.
- The policy effectively required denial or termination unless a claimant’s impairment met or equaled a listed impairment, bypassing the individualized assessment required at later steps.
- The policy was implemented through internal memoranda and instructions rather than published rules, making its existence and effect difficult for claimants and counsel to detect.
- The class included (a) claimants who received final administrative decisions but did not seek judicial review within the 60-day period in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and (b) claimants who had not completed administrative review and thus lacked a formal “final decision.”
- The district court held the internal policy unlawful and ordered reopening and redetermination of class members’ claims under lawful standards, including for those who missed the 60-day deadline or failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether the 60-day filing period for judicial review in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) may be equitably tolled to include claimants who did not file suit within 60 days after a final administrative decision.
2. Whether § 405(g)’s administrative exhaustion requirement may be waived to include claimants who had not obtained a “final decision” due to incomplete administrative review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held that § 405(g)’s 60-day filing requirement is not jurisdictional and functions as a statute of limitations.
- The Court held equitable tolling was available and appropriate because a secret, system-wide policy prevented claimants from learning that their denials resulted from an unlawful practice.
- The Court held the exhaustion component of the “final decision” requirement could be waived for the class because the challenge was collateral to individual entitlement determinations, exhaustion would be futile given agency adherence to the policy, and forcing exhaustion would risk irreparable harm.
- The Court cautioned that tolling or waiver is not automatic whenever an internal agency policy is unlawful; the result depended on the combination of secrecy, inability to discover the violation, and the futility and hardship of further administrative proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The 60-day period in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a limitations period, not a jurisdictional bar, and may be equitably tolled in appropriate circumstances.
- Equitable tolling is justified where government conduct, including secrecy about an unlawful policy, prevents claimants from timely learning of a violation of rights.
- Section 405(g)’s “final decision” requirement includes a waivable exhaustion element; courts may waive exhaustion when the claim is collateral to the merits, exhaustion would be futile, and delay would cause irreparable harm.
- Classwide relief, including reopening and readjudication, may be ordered where a system-wide unlawful policy infected disability determinations and ordinary administrative review would not provide an effective remedy.

## Conclusion

The Court permitted equitable tolling of § 405(g)’s 60-day deadline and excused exhaustion for a class challenging a covert, unlawful disability adjudication policy, because secrecy prevented timely filing and administrative review would have been futile and harmful.


Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986)