review that denial. Califano v. Sanders, 430 US 99, 107-09, 97 S Ct 980, 51 L Ed 2d 192 (1977). However, if the Secretary, in the act of denying reopening of the earlier claim, proceeded to reconsider the claim “on the merits,” the court treated the claim as “having been reopened as a matter of administrative discretion,” making it subject to judicial review. Jelinek v. Heckler, 764 F2d 507, 508 (8th Cir 1985). Second, petitioners assert that, as a general legal principle, “it is the body of a document, not its caption, that controls” the legal effect of that document. To support that proposition, petitioners cite a series of cases that, in the main, discuss the legal import of motions filed with the court. E.g., Burden v. Copco Refrigeration, Inc., 339 Or 388, 393, 121 P3d 1133 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Welker v. TSPC, 332 Or 306, 312, 27 P3d 1038
holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold an oral hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellant was afforded a full opportunity to respond to the motion holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice holding that when a party incorrectly captioned a document as a motion to dismiss under orcp 21 a that fact did not prevent a trial court from treating it as an application for a preliminary hearing under orcp 21 c holding that the district court may summarily dismiss the motion or determine that a potentially substantial issue or issues of fact are raised in the motion   and hold a preliminary hearing after appointment of counsel holding that party was bound by stipulation of fact because it did not file motion with trial court requesting to be relieved from it