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. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  2. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  3. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  4. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  5. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

ADVERTISEMENT