bound by the judgment of a federal court." Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 535 (1976) (dissenting opinion). The conclusion that injunctive relief is available under § 205(g) is supported both by our implicit holding that a three-judge court was properly convened in Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974), and by the opinions of four Courts of Appeals.18 V For these reasons, we hold that recipients who file a written request for waiver under § 204(b) are entitled to the opportunity for a pre-recoupment oral hearing; that those who merely request reconsideration under § 204(a) are not so entitled; that class certification is permissible under § 205(g); that the Buffington court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a nationwide class; that the class did exceed the bounds permitted by § 205(g), but that the class members who received relief all satisfied the § 205(g) requirement that a request for waiver be filed; and that injunctive relief may be awarded in a § 205(g) proceeding. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part. It is so ordered. MR. JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. "See Caswell v. Califano, 583 F. 2d 9, 14 n. 12 (CA1 1978); In re Letourneau, 559 F. 2d 892, 894 (CA2 1977); Johnson v. Mathews, 539 F.2d 1111, 1125-1126 (CA8 1976); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 523 F. 2d 689, 694-697 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976). See generally Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 763 n. 8 (1975), noting this issue. of Hearings Examiners. Waiver of Personal Appearance Reconsideration Step in the Claimant Can Request Recon- Title XVI Reconsideration Step of Determination - PPS-6... 254 256 258 261 Hearings and Appeals SECTION 205(b) and 210(i) (42 U.S.C. 405(b) and 410(i))— HEARINGS AND APPEALS-PLACE OF HEARING 20 CFR 404.923 SSR-77-3c SAMPAYAN v. MATTHEWS, USDC, GUAM, Civ. No. 75-048 (04/26/76) The Social Security Administration has decided not to appeal the decision set out below and will provide hearing locations in Guam for individuals resident there who are dissatisfied with an initial and reconsidered determination made by SSA in the title II cash benefits program. Although the court did not address the matter of hearings on American Samoa in its decision, the status of Guam and American Samoa are identical under the title II programs in that, pursuant to section 210(i) of the Social Security Act, employment coverage has been extended to the residents of both, hearing locations will also be provided in American Samoa. DUGENAS, District Judge: This is an action brought by plaintiff subsequent to an adverse decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with regard to plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Federal Social Security Act. The action is filed pursuant to Title 42, Section 405(g), of the United States Code. The record is not disputed. Plaintiff suffered an initial disability while fully insured under the Social Security Act on August 2, 1972. On September 20, 1972, plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits claiming that he had been unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity since August 2, 1972, as a result of his medical disability. Plaintiff was finally awarded Disability Insurance Benefits due to his disabled condition from August 2, 1972 until February 28, 1974 but was denied benefits subsequent to February 28, 1974 based on a finding that he was no longer disabled as of February 28, 1974. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C., Section 405(b), plaintiff filed a timely appeal to William H. Yin, Administrative Law Judge, on the basis of documentary evidence. On May 21, 1974, Judge Yin entered a decision determining that plaintiff was not entitled to any Disability Benefits subsequent to February 28, 1974 on the basis that plaintiff was no longer disabled. The Appeals Council of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals of the Social Security Administration upheld the decision of Judge Yin and so notified the plaintiff by letter dated May 7, 1975. Subsequent to this letter, plaintiff filed this timely action. Before the Court are Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's motion is based on two grounds: One, that no substantial evidence existed in the record to support the decision of the Administrative Trial Judge, and Two, that plaintiff was denied due process of law because he was not given a fair or reasonable opportunity to a hearing and be present at that hearing. The Court has considered plaintiff's second ground for Summary Judgment first. 42 U.S.C., § 405(b) clearly provides that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall provide an applicant in plaintiff's position a "reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to such decision." Plaintiff has placed into evidence his affidavit and the affidavit of the Assistant Pacific Area Manager for the Social Security Administration supporting the following set of facts: That on February 1, 1974, plaintiff was informed by a Social Security Representative on Guam that if he wanted to attend and present evidence in person at the hearing on his appeal of the denial of his Disability Benefits that it would be necessary for him to provide his own roundtrip transportation from Guam to Honolulu, Hawaii, plus expenses since the Social Security Administration would not hold a hearing in Guam. Plaintiff informed the Social Security Representative that he did not have the money to make the trip and was directed by the representative to check a statement on a request for a hearing that read substantially as follows: "I waive my right to appear and give evidence, and hereby request a decision on the evidence on file." Section 404.923, Title 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that the Administrative Law Judge hearing an appeal shall fix the time and place for the hearing within the United States. It also defines the United States as meaning the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Said section seems to preclude the Administrative Law Judge from holding a hearing in the Territory of Guam. Section 7161 of the Social Security Claims Manual states "If the appellant lives in Guam or American Samoa, a hearing is available to him in Hawaii or in one of the other forty-nine (49) States. Advise appellant that he would have to come to the hearing at his own expense." The Court will take judicial notice of the fact that for plaintiff to attend a hearing in Hawaii, the minimum cost incurred would be in excess of Six Hundred Dollars. Such amount would not include the additional cost of sending witnesses, such as plaintiff's doctor, to testify at such hearing as allowed by Section 404.927, Title 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations. HEW Publication No. (SSA) 76-10282 has been submitted to the Court. The Branch Manager of the local Social Security Office in Agana, Guam, has stated by affidavit that Publication No. 76-10282 has been forwarded to him by the Social Security Administration to make available to Social Security claimants residing on Guam. The publication provides that an appeal hearing will usually be held within 75 miles of a claimant's home. If the hearing is not held within 75 miles of the claim |