Bornstein v. Saul
| Decision Date | 22 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-10199-MPK |
| Parties | HARRIET L. BORNSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER (#26) AND MOTION FOR ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF COMMISSIONER (#29).
In July 2002, plaintiff, Harriet L. Bornstein, filed an initial claim for widow's insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, based on the earnings of her former husband, Paul Bornstein, who divorced plaintiff effective in March 1980, and passed away in Massachusetts in 1999. (TR at 27-28, 50, 52-54.)3 Plaintiff stated in her claim that she had married Mr. Bornsteinon May 10, 1970, in Massachusetts. Id. at 28, 53. Because plaintiff had not been married to Mr. Bornstein for at least ten years, the Social Security Administration (SSA or the administration) denied her claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(b)(1), 416(d)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(a)(2). Id. at 156, 270-71.4
Rather than appealing the denial of her claim, plaintiff filed the instant claims for Title II benefits in 2009 and 2010, which the SSA appears to have consolidated (the claim). (TR at 28-29.)5 Unlike in 2002, plaintiff claimed that she was in a common-law marriage with Mr. Bornstein prior to their formal marriage ceremony in Massachusetts. Id. at 31, 109.
In August 2013, after the claim was denied on initial review and reconsideration, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Chester G. Senf held a hearing, at which plaintiff waived her right to representation. Id. at 30, 108.6 On October 1, 2013, ALJ Senf issued a decision approving plaintiff's claim, finding that plaintiff was in a common-law marriage to Mr. Borstein in Georgia and Texas beginning in 1969, more than ten years prior to their March 1980 divorce, allowing her to receive widow's benefits. Id. at 105-11.7 ALJ Senf's decision was sent to plaintiff on the samedate. Id. at 105. ALJ Senf did not address any request to reopen the unfavorable decision on the 2002 application. Id. at 30, 105-11. On November 18, 2013, the SSA sent plaintiff a Notice of Award, explaining that she was entitled to Title II benefits beginning in July 2009. Id. at 112-14.
Despite her favorable award from ALJ Senf, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration seeking an "entitlement date" of July 31, 2002, around the date of her first Title II claim. Id. at 118. On December 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for review, seeking the same relief. Id. at 119. In December 2015, the Appeals Council granted plaintiff's request for review. Id. at 31, 134. Because it could not locate the transcript of the hearing and, therefore, determine whether ALJ Senf's decision was supported by "substantial evidence," the Appeals Council vacated ALJ Senf's decision and remanded the case to another ALJ for a new hearing. Id. at 31, 134-38. Plaintiff again waived her right to representation at the new hearing, held in front of ALJ Stephen C. Fulton on June 9, 2016. Id. at 159, 267-378.8
In July 2016, ALJ Fulton issued a decision denying plaintiff's claim. Id. at 27-43. Plaintiff then retained counsel, and counsel filed a Request for Review of ALJ Fulton's decision. Id. at 176. In March 2018, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review. Id. at 11-14. As a consequence of the denial, the ALJ's decision de facto became the final decision of the Commissioner, subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The instant action was filed on January 30, 2019. (#1.) On August 6, 2019, plaintiff filed the present motion for order reversing the decision of the Commissioner. (#26.) Defendant's motion for order affirming the decision of the Commissioner followed on September 18, 2019. (#29.) Both motions have been fully briefed. (##30, 33, 34.)9
Plaintiff testified in front of ALJ Fulton that she met Mr. Bornstein some time in 1966, when they both were living in Massachusetts. (TR at 290.) Approximately one year later, the couple discussed getting married, and Mr. Bornstein gave plaintiff an engagement ring. Id. at 292. Around the end of 1968, before the couple set a wedding date, Mr. Borstein got drafted into the Army. Id. at 294-95.
In early 1969, Mr. Borstein was ordered to report to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for basic training. Id. at 295-98. Approximately ten weeks later, plaintiff joined Mr. Bornstein in Georgia, renting an off-base apartment Mr. Borstein had found for her in her maiden name. Id. at 298-99, 304-05. While Mr. Borstein was unable to stay with plaintiff at the apartment every night, it is undisputed that she and Mr. Borstein cohabitated there for purposes of a common-law marriage inquiry. Id. at 299, 342. Plaintiff testified that her parents were "[v]ery unhappy" about her decision to join Mr. Bornstein in Georgia and asked her to stay in Massachusetts. Id. at 295-96.
During her time in Georgia, plaintiff became acquainted with several other women who were living in the same apartment complex, showed them her engagement ring, and told them thatshe "had the intent to get married." Id. at 308-10. Also at this time, Mr. Bornstein obtained a life insurance policy, which named plaintiff, "Harriet Linda Bornstein[,]" as the beneficiary and referred to plaintiff as his spouse. Id. at 335. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Bornstein was "probably thinking futuristic wise" in referring to her as his spouse on the policy. Id. at 338; see also id. at 339 (). However, she noted that she and Mr. Borstein "were considering [themselves] like a married couple[,] . . . living like a married couple" and doing "everything that all married couples do," such as cohabitating, having sexual relations, and going places together. Id. at 332, 343.10
In February 1970, Mr. Bornstein received orders to transfer to Fort Hood, Texas, by March 20, 1970. Id. at 300. Plaintiff accompanied Mr. Borstein to Texas and, as she did in Georgia, rented an apartment in Texas. Id. at 314-15. When he was able, Mr. Borstein would stay in the apartment with plaintiff and commute to the military base at Fort Hood. Id. at 316. The couple split the rent on the Texas apartment, and plaintiff believes that their electric bill was in both of their names. Id. at 319. Plaintiff does not know whether she and Mr. Borstein jointly owned any personal property, such as a car or furniture, at that time. Id. at 331. The couple did not file any income tax returns at that point. Id.
Plaintiff testified that, during her time in Georgia and Texas, Mr. Borstein never requested a military spouse's ID card for her. Id. at 301. She never asked Mr. Bornstein why they could not live on the military bases in married housing, id. at 315, never considered whether she could receive medical treatment on the military bases, id. at 303, 318, and never applied for any otherbenefits as the wife of a military member before 1970. Id. at 317. However, she noted that she was young at the time and "maybe [she] never even thought to ask" about such things. Id. at 303.
Plaintiff testified that Mr. Bornstein obtained leave during the spring of 1970, and the couple briefly returned to Massachusetts for a formal wedding ceremony, held at the Temple of Ezrath Israel in Malden on May 10, 1970. Id. at 320-21. Prior to the ceremony, plaintiff and Mr. Borstein obtained a Massachusetts marriage license. Id. at 324. In order to be formally married at the Temple of Ezrath Israel, Mr. Borstein had to convert to Judaism, and he spent time studying with a Rabbi while in Georgia. Id. at 345-46. Plaintiff testified that she and Mr. Bornstein never met with the Rabbi in Georgia to discuss their marital status. Id. at 345. During the formal ceremony, plaintiff received her wedding ring, with the date of their formal ceremony, May 10, 1970, engraved inside. Id. at 323-24.
Plaintiff and Mr. Borstein then went on a 5-day honeymoon to Bermuda, after which they returned to Fort Hood, and plaintiff applied for benefits as the wife of a military member. Id. at 322, 328. Shortly after returning to Texas, Mr. Borstein was reassigned to Fort Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts, and the couple returned to Massachusetts. Id. at 328. Following his discharge from the military, Mr. Borstein worked as a mechanic in Somerville, Massachusetts. Id. at 329.
On September 28, 1979, a Judgment of Divorce Nisi was issued by the Middlesex Probate Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Id. at 27. The Judgment became final on March 28, 1980. Id. at 27. The marriage date of May 10, 1970, was used in the divorce proceedings. Id. at 33.
In addition to the life insurance policy and divorce filings, plaintiff submitted the following evidence at the hearing in front of ALJ Fulton: her bridal shower invitation, inviting guests to "attend a Bridal Shower in Honor of Harriet Lightman [plaintiff's maiden name] on [April 7,1970]"; a Certificate of Conversion, dated March 20, 1970, welcoming Mr. Bornstein into the Jewish faith; a marriage certificate, stating that plaintiff married Mr. Bornstein in Malden, Massachusetts on May 10, 1970; the couple's certificate of divorce; Mr. Bornstein's death certificate; a Statement of Marital Relationship, dated July 16, 2010; a letter from Mr. Bornstein's sister, Patricia Fantasia, dated April 23, 2010; a letter from Mr. Bornstein's sister, Sandra L. Holmes, dated April 19, 2012; and a letter from plaintiff's lifelong friend, Dina Cavalieri, dated April 18, 2012. (TR at 44, 46-54, 63, 76-81, 98-99, 356-37.)
Plaintiff's Statement of Martial Relationship provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial