Humber v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 14 Civ. 5520 (JCF) |
| Parties | JAMES HUMBER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
The plaintiff, James Humber, brings this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his claim for retroactive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. The parties consented to proceed before me for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Commissioner then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. By order dated June 3, 2015, I converted the Commissioner's application to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided the plaintiff an opportunity to respond accordingly.
For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the case is remanded to the Social SecurityAdministration (the "SSA") for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
Mr. Humber filed applications for disability insurance benefits and SSI in September 2003. (Declaration of Katherine Rae Lingen dated Feb. 19, 2015 ("Lingen Decl."), ¶ (3)(a); Disability Determination and Transmittal, attached as Exh. 1 to Lingen Decl., at 1). The Commissioner denied his applications on April 2, 2004. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(a); SSA Disability Determination at 2). Pursuant to the SSA's guidelines, Mr. Humber requested a hearing before an ALJ to challenge the agency's determination. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(b); SSA Letter dated June 10, 2004, attached as Exh. 2 to Lingen Decl.). Following a hearing on March 1, 2005, the ALJ awarded Mr. Humber disability insurance benefits and found him eligible for SSI payments as of May 5, 2003. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(c); SSA Decision dated March 10, 2005, attached as part of Exh. 3 to Lingen Decl., at 4).
On May 11, 2005, the SSA informed Mr. Humber that his first payment of SSI benefits in the amount of $7, 367.72 was being withheld pursuant to an interim assistance reimbursement agreement that he had entered into with the Westchester County Department of Social Services ("DSS"). (SSA Notice dated May 11, 2005, attachedto Complaint ("Compl.") at 11).1 Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Humber agreed that the SSA would reimburse DSS for any assistance paid to him while his application for SSI benefits was pending from September 2003 through December 2003. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(g); Letter of Elizabeth B. Bake dated Nov. 17, 2011 ("Bake 11/17/11 Letter"), attached as Exh. 7 to Lingen Decl.).
On July 7, 2011, Mr. Humber sent a letter to the Commissioner and filed a request for reconsideration seeking review of the amount of retroactive SSI benefits paid to him. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(d); Letter of James Humber dated July 7, 2011 & Request for Reconsideration dated July 6, 2011, attached as Exh. 4 to Lingen Decl.). In response, the agency acknowledged that Mr. Humber's inquiry related to the payment of his retroactive disability benefits but indicated only that an underpayment of $909.00 had occurred in his case and stated that it was depositing that amount in his bank account. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(e); Letter of Elizabeth B. Bake dated July 27, 2011, attached as Exh. 5 to Lingen Decl.). Mr. Humber sent the agency six additional letters concerning the unresolved issue of the diversion of funds to DSS. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(f); Letters of James Humber dated Aug. 4, 2011, Sept. 7, 2011,Oct. 4, 2011, Nov. 3, 2011, Nov. 15, 2011, and Nov. 28, 2011 (collectively "Humber Aug.-Nov. 2011 Letters"), attached as Exh. 6 to Lingen Decl.). In each, he requested information regarding his retroactive benefits but did not request a hearing on the agency's determination of his request for reconsideration. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(f); Humber Aug.-Nov. 2011 Letters). In his last two letters, he alleged that DSS did not receive any of the $7, 367.72 in retroactive benefits. (Letters of James Humber dated Nov. 15, 2011, and Nov. 28, 2011).
In response to Mr. Humber's November 3, 2011, letter, the SSA sent him a letter reiterating that it had sent his retroactive benefits payment of $7,367.72 to DSS. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(g); Bake 11/17/11 Letter). The SSA's letter explained that DSS is the agency responsible for deducting the assistance paid to Mr. Humber from the amount given to DSS by the SSA, but it failed to make any reference to the SSA's administrative appeals process. (Bake 11/17/11 Letter) ("After the [DSS] deducts the assistance paid to you, that department, not the [SSA], is responsible for refunding any remaining balance to you. . . .").
On December 2, 2011, Mr. Humber submitted a second request for reconsideration stating that he had not received an overpayment. ( ). It is unclear from the record to what this request for reconsideration was referring and whether it was distinct from the claim for retroactive benefits in Mr. Humber's initial request for reconsideration. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(d); Letter of James Humber dated July 7, 2011 & Request for Reconsideration dated July 6, 2011).
Mr. Humber then filed this action on July 17, 2014, seeking judicial review of the SSA's determination of his retroactive SSI benefits. Mr. Humber argues that it is "unfair" for the SSA to claim that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies because the SSA has failed to act on his request for three years. (Humber Aff., ¶ 10).
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court will grant summary judgment if "the movant shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986); Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 285-286 (2d Cir. 2002); Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 189 F.3d 208,214 (2d Cir. 1999). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The opposing party then must come forward with specific materials establishing the existence of a genuine dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Where the non-movant fails to make "a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial," summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
In assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Vann v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1040, 1048-49 (2d Cir. 1995). However, the court must inquire whether "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party," Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, and grant summary judgment where the non-movant's evidence is conclusory, speculative, or not significantly probative. Id. at 249-50. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting First National Bank of Arizona v. CitiesService Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288 (1968)).
In addition, the court's review of the record is limited to facts that would be admissible at trial. Rule 56 states that affidavits in support of or against summary judgment shall "set out facts that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Accordingly, "only admissible evidence need be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir. 1997). A party may not oppose a summary judgment motion on the basis of inadmissible evidence, unless the party can "show[] that admissible evidence will be available at trial." Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919, 924 (2d Cir. 1985); see also Santos v. Murdock, 243 F.3d 681, 683 (2d Cir. 2001) ().
Furthermore, the submissions of a pro se plaintiff like Mr. Humber must be liberally construed on "the understanding that 'implicit in the right to self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training.'" Abreu v. Astrue, No. 11 CV 0521, 2011 WL 3420609, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) (quoting Abbas v.Dixon, 480 F. 3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007)). Nevertheless, proceeding pro se does not relieve a litigant from the usual requirements of summary judgment, and a pro se party's "'bald assertion,' completely unsupported by evidence, is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Lee v. Coughlin, 902 F. Supp. 424, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (quoting Carey v. Crescenzi, 923 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1991)).
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act provides for limited judicial review of final decisions of the Commissioner. That section states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain review of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial