Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit / Kelvin Wells v. Frank Bisignano
5th Cir.

Kelvin Wells v. Frank Bisignano

July 20, 2026 ·25-30680 ·Per Curiam ·Per Curiam · By Raj Patel

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of a Social Security disability claim.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:20
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: Affirmed.
  • Standard: De novo review of dismissal.
  • Vote: Per Curiam decision by Judges Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt.
  • Practical effect: Claimants must complete all administrative steps including Appeals Council review before filing in federal court, even if the agency remands the case for further development.

Background

Kelvin Wells applied for disability insurance benefits under Title Two of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration denied his application. After an administrative law judge hearing and an Appeals Council remand for additional factfinding, the claim remained pending at the field office. Wells sought judicial review in federal district court, which dismissed the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the Social Security Act requires claimants to exhaust four steps of administrative review before seeking federal court review. Because the Appeals Council remanded the claim for further evidentiary development, there was no final decision available for judicial review. The court noted that while exhaustion is nonjurisdictional, the district court properly dismissed the claim because the administrative process was not complete.

What it means going forward

Claimants must complete all administrative steps including Appeals Council review before filing in federal court, even if the agency remands the case for further development.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 20, 2026 Lillian Gonzalez Plaintiff— v. 2009 Houston Scott Street, L.P., doing business as Austin Development Lots; Rene O. Campos; Marcus Dominic; Eureka Multifamily Group, L.P.; Kristy O. Neil Defendants— Jul 20, 2026 United States of America v. Griffin Isaiah Jefferson Jul 17, 2026 United States of America Plaintiff— v. Eric Reed Marascio Defendant— Jul 17, 2026 Eugene Ezenwa Ebem v. Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.