With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to deny her request for review of ALJ Zolezzi’s denial of her February 2002 and October 2004 applications. During the Administrative Hearing on the current application, ALJ Stephan addressed ALJ Zolezzi’s prior decision. ALJ Stephan specifically declined to reopen plaintiffs prior applications because good cause had not been established. (T. 16). ALJ Stephan did not review the prior record and specifically limited his review to evidence after the prior applications were rejected. Plaintiff does not argue that ALJ Stephan “constructively reopened” the prior decision and, in fact, plaintiff concedes that ALJ Stephan did not obtain the prior file. Thus, the ALJ could not have “constructively reopened” the case. See Adams ex rel. Williams v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 102824, at *11 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Owens, 2004 WL 2725083, at *3 (the

A: holding that because the alj did not have the plaintiffs entire prior record he could not have constructively reopened the prior applications
B: holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act
C: holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action
D: holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit
A.