ILNews

Court: Attorney mistake 'inexcusable neglect'

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a woman's appeal following the denial of Social Security benefits because the woman's attorney failed to file the appeal in time under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Janet L. McCarty v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 07-2104, Janet McCarty's application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income was denied by the Social Security Administration and an administrative law judge.

She appealed to the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, which issued its final order March 9, 2007, affirming the ALJ's decision. Sixty-three days later, McCarty's attorney, whose name does not appear in the Circuit Court's opinion, filed a notice of appeal, and later filed a motion requesting a three-day extension to file the notice of appeal and supportive memorandum.

The memorandum stated McCarty's attorney misunderstood a paragraph in the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the Southern District of Indiana, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). The U.S. District Court granted the extension to which Astrue filed a motion for reconsideration. The U.S. District Court denied the motion for reconsideration. McCarty filed this appeal arguing evidence fails to support the ALJ's conclusion that she didn't qualify for disability benefits.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges didn't even discuss the case in regards to whether the ALJ erred because McCarty's attorney failed to file a timely notice of appeal, which is a prerequisite to appellate review, wrote Judge William Bauer.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of the entry of a judgment or order being appealed as per Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). A District Court can extend the time if a party can show excusable neglect for the tardiness.

"The attorney's understanding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e) provided him with three extra days to file a notice of appeal is inexcusable. An unaccountable lapse in basic legal knowledge is not excusable neglect," the judge wrote.

The distinction between "entry of judgment" and "service of a notice" is unambiguous to any trained attorney. In addition the 7th Circuit has explicitly stated that rule only applies to documents "served" on opposing counsel, not to documents such as notices of appeals, Judge Bauer wrote.

McCarty's attorney is an experienced litigator of more than 30 years. This mistake amounts to inexcusable neglect, the judge wrote, so the U.S. District Court shouldn't have granted the extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT