Hoffman v. Apfel
| Decision Date | 27 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. C00-4052-MWB.,C00-4052-MWB. |
| Citation | 122 F.Supp.2d 1001 |
| Parties | Donna HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
David P. Simmons, Legal Services Corporation, Sioux City, IA, for plaintiff Donna Hoffman.
Marth A. Fagg, Assistant United States Attorney, Sioux City, IA, for defendant Kenneth S. Apfel.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1003
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .................................................... 1003
A. Arguments Of The Parties ....................................... 1003
B. Applicable Precedents .......................................... 1004
1. Supreme Court Authority ..................................... 1005
2. Appellate decisions ......................................... 1005
a. Taylor v. Heckler ........................................ 1005
b. Doughty v. Bowen ......................................... 1006
3. The split in the district courts ............................ 1008
a. Rivera v. Apfel .......................................... 1008
b. Luna v. Apfel ............................................ 1010
c. Other courts ............................................. 1011
C. Interim Benefits In This Case .................................. 1013
1. Authority to award interim benefits ......................... 1013
2. Appropriateness of interim benefits ......................... 1014
III. CONCLUSION ........................................................ 1017
Faced with a split in authority among courts to consider the question, this court must decide whether or not to award interim benefits during remand of this initial application for Social Security disability benefits. The Commissioner sought a remand of this action, more than five years after the claimant initially applied for disability benefits, because the administrative file could not be found. The claimant now seeks interim benefits based on her likelihood of success on remand and the undue delays in the administrative determination of her claim.
In this action, plaintiff Donna Hoffman, a fifty-five-year-old woman, initially filed an application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on September 2, 1995, alleging a disability arising from emotional disorders and hypertension, which she asserts has prevented her from engaging in any type of substantial gainful work activity since June 2, 1995. She subsequently filed an application for widow's disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act on October 2, 1995. Both applications were denied upon initial review on November 1, 1995, and upon reconsideration on January 5, 1996, on the ground that, even though Hoffman was disabled, her disability did not meet the durational requirement for benefits.
Hoffman requested a hearing on her applications on February 1, 1996. That hearing was eventually held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on August 22, 1996. The ALJ did not produce a decision until March 28, 1997, at which time the ALJ denied Hoffman's applications. Hoffman appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Counsel on May 1, 1997. The Appeals Council did not issue its written decision affirming the denial of benefits in Hoffman's case until nearly three years later on March 16, 2000.
While awaiting the decision of the Appeals Council on her first application for disability benefits, Hoffman filed a second application on March 8, 1999. On May 25, 1999, on initial review, the Social Security Administration determined that Hoffman was indeed disabled as of March 1999, but that Hoffman's unearned income exceeded qualification limits for Title XVI SSI benefits and that her eligibility for widow's benefits under Title II expired in February 1998.
Promptly after the Appeals Council affirmed denial of her first application for benefits in March 2000, Hoffman commenced the present action for judicial review by filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis on May 15, 2000. Hoffman's in forma pauperis application was granted on May 16, 2000, and her complaint was filed that day. On July 28, 2000, the Commissioner requested and received an extension of time until October 2, 2000, to respond to Hoffman's complaint for judicial review. On October 2, 2000, instead of answering the complaint, the Commissioner moved to remand this action pursuant to sentence 6 of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), because the Commissioner represented that the claim file in this case could not be located. By order dated October 19, 2000, this court remanded this action to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative action.
Shortly thereafter, however, in a motion filed October 27, 2000, to amend the remand order, Hoffman requested an award of interim benefits during the remand. In response to Hoffman's motion, the court stayed the remand of this action on October 30, 2000, until the parties could brief the question of whether or not interim benefits can and should be awarded in the circumstances of this case. Pursuant to the court's October 30, 2000, order, the parties submitted briefs on the question of the availability and propriety of interim benefits in this case on November 13, 2000. The court concludes that the question of whether or not Hoffman can and should be awarded interim benefits during the remand of this action is now ripe for disposition.
Hoffman acknowledges that two Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Fourth in Taylor v Heckler, 769 F.2d 201 (4th Cir.1985), and the Tenth in Doughty v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 644 (10th Cir.1988), have ruled that interim benefits are not available on remand to claimants whose initial applications for disability benefits were denied. However, Hoffman contends that these decisions rely on erroneous interpretations of the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 104 S.Ct. 2249, 81 L.Ed.2d 88 (1984), a decision which Hoffman contends never reached the question of the availability of interim benefits to persons in her situation and which cannot be construed to foreclose such benefits. Moreover, Hoffman contends that the failure of Congress to address interim benefits on remand for persons making an initial application for disability benefits, when Congress did provide for such benefits for persons contesting the termination of their disability benefits, does not override the court's equitable power to award interim benefits in appropriate circumstances to persons, such as herself, contesting denial of an initial application for benefits. Hoffman contends that the Commissioner can show no harm from an award of interim benefits in this case, because the Commissioner can recoup any benefits paid pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 404(a) if the payments are made in error. On the other hand, Hoffman contends that the Commissioner has twice determined that she is disabled, but denied benefits, on the first occasion, on the ground that her disability was unlikely to continue for twelve months or more, and, on the second occasion, for reasons that were unrelated to her disability. The first denial of benefits, Hoffman is confident, will now be overturned. Hoffman also contends that payment of benefits in her case has already been unduly delayed for more than five years by slow rulings in the administrative process, and will now be further delayed by the loss of her claim file, which has precluded judicial review. She urges the court to follow the ruling in Rivera v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 358 (S.D.N.Y.2000), for example, rather than the two contrary circuit decisions, and award interim benefits during remand of this action.
The Commissioner notes that the Social Security Administration has now located the claim file in this case, including a cassette tape of the administrative hearing, and that the tape has now been sent to a contractor to be transcribed. Thus, the Commissioner apparently contends that a prompt disposition of this action upon remand is likely. The Commissioner specifically contends that interim benefits on remand are simply not available by statute to persons who were denied benefits on their initial application. Moreover, on the basis of Day, Taylor, and Doughty, the Commissioner contends that, because Congress has specifically authorized the payment of interim benefits to persons who had their benefits terminated, awards of interim benefits to persons who have never been determined to be disabled are implicitly forbidden. The Commissioner also suggests that the failure of Congress to impose deadlines for benefits determinations or to provide for interim benefits in the circumstances presented here reflects a conscious legislative decision not to provide for interim benefits in cases of administrative delay.
The court's analysis of the question of whether interim benefits can be awarded on remand of an initial application for disability benefits begins with consideration of the applicable precedents, and, more specifically, with the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 104 S.Ct. 2249, 81 L.Ed.2d 88 (1984). However, because the interpretation of the decision in Day by the federal circuit and district courts has led to a split in authority on the question presented here, and our own Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet addressed the question, the survey of precedents must continue with decisions from the lower courts.
The Supreme Court was presented with the question at issue here in Heckler v. Day when the Court "granted certiorari to consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. Massanari, No. C 00-4052-MWB (N.D. Iowa 7/18/2001)
...to recoupment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 404 if it is ultimately determined that the benefits paid were not due." Hoffman v. Apfel, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (N.D. Iowa 2000). However, no further determination of Hoffman's claims for benefits was made by the Social Security Administration upo......
-
McClain v. Barnhart
...found sufficiently persuasive by Magistrate Judge Francis, to sustain such relief under some circumstances. See, e.g., Hoffman v. Apfel, 122 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Iowa 2000); see also Rivera v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 358 (S.D.N.Y.2000), vacated as moot, 2000 WL 33647061 (2d Cir. Nov.14, 2000); b......
-
Ballard v. Astrue
...inherent in delayingaward of benefits to a child), vacated as moot, 2000 WL 33647061 (2d Cir. Nov, 14, 2000); Hoffman v. Apfel, 122 F.Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (awarding interim SSI benefits to an adult applicant upon finding an "undue delay" in administrative process and clear prejudi......
-
Federal court issues
...her likelihood of success on remand and the undue delays in the administrative determination of her claim. Hoffman v. Apfel , 122 F. Supp.2d 1001, 1002-03 (N.D. Iowa 2000). The court noted that the Commissioner sought a remand of this case more than five years after the initial application ......
-
Table of Cases
...750, 751-752 (3d Cir. 1966), § 603.4 Hoffman v. Apfel , 62 F. Supp.2d 1204 (D. Kan. Aug. 30, 1999), §§ 312.10, 607.1 Hoffman v. Apfel, 122 F. Supp.2d 1001, s1002, 1003 (N.D. Iowa 2000), § 603.6 Hoffman v. Halter , 140 F. Supp.2d 1056, 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2001), §§ 301.2, 1301.2 Hofslien v. Barn......
-
Table of cases
...750, 751-752 (3d Cir. 1966), § 603.4 Hoffman v. Apfel , 62 F. Supp.2d 1204 (D. Kan. Aug. 30, 1999), §§ 312.10, 607.1 Hoffman v. Apfel, 122 F. Supp.2d 1001, s1002, 1003 (N.D. Iowa 2000), § 603.6 Hoffman v. Halter , 140 F. Supp.2d 1056, 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2001), §§ 301.2, 1301.2 Hofslien v. Barn......