Eleventh Circuit Clarifies that Failure to Exhaust SSA Administrative Remedies Is Non-Jurisdictional but Still Dispositive

I. Introduction

Case: Daniel L. Chapel v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (11th Cir. No. 24-11483, 10 June 2025).

Parties:

• Appellant: Daniel L. Chapel – a pro se claimant whose disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) were terminated in 2013 and who sought judicial review after an unsuccessful request for reinstatement.
• Appellee: Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).

Key Issue on Appeal: Whether the district court correctly dismissed Chapel’s complaint for lack of a “final decision” (i.e., for failure to exhaust administrative remedies) and whether such failure is a jurisdictional defect.

Significance: The Eleventh Circuit:

• Formally recognizes, following Smith v. Berryhill, that the SSA’s exhaustion requirement is non-jurisdictional, even though non-exhaustion remains fatal to the claim.
• Clarifies that a fully favorable Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) decision in an overpayment proceeding cannot be boot-strapped into a “final decision” on a different substantive claim (here, reinstatement of DIB).

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Chapel’s district-court action, but on slightly different reasoning:

1. The district court erroneously labeled the exhaustion defect as a jurisdictional bar; the requirement is instead a “claim-processing rule.”
2. Nevertheless, Chapel never obtained a “final decision” on his reinstatement request because he failed to pursue administrative review up to the Appeals Council. Consequently, dismissal without prejudice was proper.
3. The earlier 2021 ALJ ruling waiving an overpayment did not resolve (or even address) Chapel’s disability status after 2013 and therefore could not satisfy § 405(g).
4. Because § 405(g) supplies the full administrative record, additional discovery was unnecessary; denying Chapel’s discovery motions did not violate due process.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 471 (2019) – Divides § 405(g) into (1) a jurisdictional “presentation” element and (2) a non-jurisdictional “exhaustion” element. The Eleventh Circuit adopts this distinction, overruling the district court’s contrary view.
• Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) – Holds that failure to seek Appeals Council review means no final decision exists; applied here to show Chapel’s administrative pathway was incomplete.
• Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) & Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984) – Discuss narrow circumstances under which courts or the Commissioner may waive exhaustion. The panel finds no such exceptional circumstances.
• Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 1997) – Reaffirms dismissal without prejudice as appropriate remedy for non-exhaustion; again adopted here.
• Rodriguez v. SSA, 118 F.4th 1302 (11th Cir. 2024) – Recites the four-step administrative review ladder (initial determination → reconsideration → ALJ → Appeals Council); used to measure Chapel’s path.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdiction vs. Claim-Processing: § 405(g) gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction when the claimant merely presents a claim to SSA; the additional steps (reconsideration, ALJ, Appeals Council) are prerequisites but not jurisdictional.
2. Absence of a “Final Decision”: After SSA denied Chapel’s March 2023 expedited-reinstatement request, he had 60 days to seek reconsideration/Appeals Council review. He filed suit instead. Under Sims and 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(b), no final decision existed.
3. Irrelevance of the 2021 Overpayment Decision: That ALJ ruling concerned waiver of a $46,868 overpayment for earlier benefit periods. It did not adjudicate (i) medical continued-disability status post-2013 or (ii) the statutory criteria for expedited reinstatement under 42 U.S.C. § 402(o). Therefore, it was not the “decision complained of.”
4. No Basis to Waive Exhaustion: Chapel alleged procedural errors and policy non-compliance, but these claims were neither purely constitutional nor collateral; they were bound up with the merits of his benefit reinstatement request—precisely the type of matter Congress assigned to SSA to sort out before judicial review.
5. Discovery & Due Process: Because § 405(g) mandates that SSA file the certified administrative transcript, extra-record discovery was superfluous. Denial of depositions did not infringe Chapel’s due-process rights.

C. Impact of the Decision

The ruling, though unpublished, consolidates and clarifies Eleventh Circuit practice in several respects:

• Practical Pleading Guidance: District courts in the circuit should stop dismissing SSA suits for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” merely because the claimant skipped later administrative steps. Instead, dismissal should be framed as failure to state a claim or failure to meet a non-jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Boundary of “Final Decision” Doctrine: Claimants cannot repurpose favorable rulings in collateral SSA matters (overpayment, offset, fee disputes) as “final decisions” for unrelated benefit controversies. This will curb creative but incorrect attempts to bypass exhaustion.
• Strategic Consequences for Litigants: Pro se and counseled plaintiffs alike must now plead and document each exhausting step. Arguments for futility or constitutional waivers must be squarely raised and supported.
• Administrative Efficiency: By reaffirming that district-court discovery is ordinarily unnecessary in § 405(g) cases, the decision streamlines litigation and reinforces the canon of review on the closed record.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Final Decision” (§ 405(g)) – A decision becomes final only after the claimant has (1) received an ALJ’s decision and (2) either obtained Appeals Council review or let the 60-day window for requesting that review lapse after requesting it. Skipping the Appeals Council step means the ALJ’s decision is not final for judicial review.
• Jurisdictional vs. Non-Jurisdictional Requirements – Jurisdictional rules go to the court’s power; if unmet the suit must be dismissed and cannot be waived. Non-jurisdictional (claim-processing) rules can be waived by the defendant or excused by the court, but if properly invoked they require dismissal.
• Exhaustion Waiver – Either the SSA can waive when further agency proceedings would be futile, or courts may waive in very narrow circumstances (pure constitutional challenges wholly distinct from benefits eligibility).
• Expedited Reinstatement – A statutory mechanism (§ 402(o)) allowing disabled persons whose benefits ceased to obtain provisional payments while SSA re-determines disability, but still subject to standard appeal tiers.

V. Conclusion

Chapel may not set a sweeping new doctrinal milestone, yet it refines Eleventh Circuit precedent in concrete ways:

• Differentiates between jurisdiction and procedural exhaustion in Social-Security litigation, aligning district-court practice with Smith v. Berryhill.
• Confirms the sufficiency of the certified administrative record for judicial review, reinforcing the limited evidentiary scope of § 405(g) cases.

Going forward, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit should cite Chapel when characterizing exhaustion dismissals, and claimants must carefully navigate the SSA’s multi-step review process before entering the courthouse doors.