McCants v. Barnhart
| Decision Date | 30 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:19-cv-0633-LSC |
| Parties | CHERYL MCCANTS, o/b/o PATRICIA NIX, the estate of PETTIS NIX, Sr., and REGINALD NIX Plaintiff, v. JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
L. SCOTT COOLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is the appeal of a final decision by the Social Security Administration denying the plaintiff's application for widow's insurance benefits and a lump sum death payment. However, the plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se also alleges various other claims, including constitutional violations. (Amended Complaint, Doc. 17-1.) Defendant Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner” or “SSA”), filed a motion to dismiss several claims in the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 9.) For the reasons stated below the Commissioner's motion to dismiss several of the plaintiff's claims is due to be granted. Additionally, as the Court explains, the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiff's application for widow's insurance benefits and a lump sum death payment is supported by substantial evidence and in accord with applicable law, and thus the decision is due to be affirmed and this action dismissed in its entirety.
In August 2014, Plaintiff, Cheryl McCants (“Plaintiff”), applied for widow's insurance benefits (“WIB”) and the lump sum death payment (“LSDP”) on the earnings record of number holder Pettis Nix (“Mr. Nix”), on behalf of Mr. Nix's widow, Patricia Nix (“Ms. Nix”). (Tr. at 17). Plaintiff is Mr. and Ms. Nix's daughter. The SSA denied this application initially, upon reconsideration, and by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) decision issued after a hearing (Tr. at 11-19, 32-40). The SSA determined that Ms. Nix was not qualified for WIB and the LSDP on Mr. Nix's earnings record because Mr. Nix did not work long enough in Social Security-covered employment to qualify for benefits. Mr. Nix needed 40 quarters of coverage to meet the required insured status, but he had earned only 38 quarters. (Tr. at 32.) In February 2019, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, which rendered the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision on Ms. Nix's WIB and LSDP claims. (Tr. at 4-9).
Plaintiff then appealed to this Court, joined by her brother, and Mr. and Ms. Nix's son, Reginald Nix. In addition to disputing whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision (Counts II and III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint), Plaintiff also asserts that the SSA's denial of Ms. Nix's 2014 application violated Ms. Nix's due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the SSA did not provide sufficient information regarding Mr. Nix's insured status, deadlines to provide additional evidence, or obtaining assistance to collect additional information (Count I). Plaintiff also asserts several claims relating to two applications for retirement insurance benefits that Mr. Nix filed in 1997 and 2000. Plaintiff alleges the same due process violations with respect to the notice provided to Mr. Nix on his applications (Count IV) as well as claims that the SSA violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-596, in the manner in which it addressed Mr. Nix's 1997 and 2000 applications (Count V). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief (Count VI) and a writ of mandamus (Count VII) to compel the SSA to find Ms. Nix entitled to spousal benefits from September 2000 to July 2014, and to reopen Mr. Nix's 1997 and 2000 applications so Plaintiff may present additional evidence to the extent Mr. Nix also applied for benefits on his earnings record.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the due process and APA claims for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and as barred by the doctrine of laches. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff responded in opposition. (Doc. 11.) While the Commissioner's motion to dismiss was pending, this Court ordered the Commissioner to file its response to the remaining claims, including, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a certified copy of the transcript of the administrative record. (Doc. 12.) The Commissioner filed its answer and the transcript on February 22, 2021. (Doc. 14). A briefing schedule was entered. (Doc. 15.) Rather than file a brief in support of her claim that the Commissioner's decision was not based upon substantial evidence, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint (doc. 17), and the Court allowed her to do so. (Docs. 20, 17-1.) Plaintiff's amended complaint, in her words, “maintains the counts and allegations against the same defendants from the original complaint.” (Doc. 17 at 1.) The Commissioner answered the amended complaint. (Doc. 21.)
Mr. Nix applied for retirement insurance benefits (“RIB”) on his earnings record in July 1997. (Tr. at 4, 18;[2] Doc. 9-1, Decl. of Shinekia M. Smith (“Smith Decl.”) ¶ 2). The SSA denied Mr. Nix's 1997 RIB application due to lack of insured status because he did not have at least 40 quarters of coverage. (Tr. at 5-7; Smith Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 2). The SSA processed Mr. Nix's 1997 RIB application and marked it as “adjudication complete” as of September 1997. (Tr. at 5-7; Smith Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, Ex. 3).
On November 24, 1998, Ms. Nix applied for RIB on her earnings record (Smith Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 4). Ms. Nix remarked in her application that Mr. Nix would not be filing for benefits on her earnings record because his civil service pension offset any benefits he might otherwise be eligible for as her spouse. (Smith Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 4). In January 1999, the SSA found Ms. Nix entitled to RIB as of February 1999. (Smith Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 4, Ex. 5). The development worksheet for Ms. Nix's RIB claim indicates she lived at the same address that Mr. Nix used in his 1997 RIB application (Id. Ex. 1, Ex. 4). To date, Ms. Nix continues to receive RIB on her earnings record amounting to at least $1, 100 each month. (Tr. at 22-23, 220).
Mr. Nix filed another application for RIB on his earnings record in June 2000. (Tr. at 4, 20; Smith Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 6). The SSA denied Mr. Nix's 2000 RIB application because Mr. Nix had not established at least 40 quarters of coverage, and processed this claim and marked it as “adjudication complete” as of June 2000. (Smith Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3, Ex. 6, Ex. 7). However, because an RIB application also serves as an application for Medicare Part A, the SSA issued a notice of award in June 2000 approving Mr. Nix's entitlement to Medicare Part A beginning September 2000 as a Medicare Qualified Government Employee and informing him that he was not entitled to any other benefits. (Tr. at 4; Smith Decl. ¶ 5). See 42 C.F.R. §§ 406.6(d)(3); Program Operations Manual System (POMS) HI 00801.022A, http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0600801022 (last revised May 14, 2007). Mr. Nix subsequently enrolled in Medicare Part B in July 2001, withdrew in August 2002, and re-enrolled in July 2003. (Tr. at 4, 209-12; Smith Decl. ¶ 6).
The SSA no longer has copies of the notices issued to Mr. Nix or Ms. Nix between 1997 and 2000, as the agency schedules the destruction of claims notices seven years from the date of adjudication of the most recently awarded claim and two years after the final denial. (Tr. at 4; Smith Decl. ¶ 7). However, by 1997, the SSA was already using the Modernized Claims System (“MCS”), which automatically generated notices upon adjudication. (Tr. at 4; Smith Decl. ¶¶ 2-4). See POMS NL 00725.002, http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0900725002 (last revised March 23, 2000). Notices of disapproved claims that the MCS generates contain information on how to appeal the determination, including notification that a claimant has 60 days from the date he receives notice of his disapproved claim to appeal the determination. See id.; POMS NL 00725.008, http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0900725008 (last revised May 17, 2013). The SSA did not receive a request for reconsideration of either of Mr. Nix's RIB applications.
On July 26, 2014, Mr. Nix died. (Tr. at 20). As noted earlier, on August 22, 2014, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, protectively applied on behalf of Ms. Nix for WIB and the LSDP on Mr. Nix's earnings record and formally applied on April 8, 2015 (Tr. at 20). The SSA denied Ms. Nix's WIB and LSDP claims initially (April 19, 2015), on reconsideration, and after a hearing with an ALJ (Tr. at 11-19, 32-40).
During the hearing, the ALJ explained to Plaintiff that Ms. Nix did not qualify for WIB and LSDP on Mr. Nix's earnings record because he did not work long enough in Social Security-covered employment to qualify for benefits. (Tr. at 213-40.) Mr. Nix needed 40 quarters of coverage to be considered fully insured for Social Security benefits, but he had only 38 quarters of coverage. (Id.) Although Plaintiff contended that Mr. Nix had additional quarters of coverage based on his military service prior to 1957, the ALJ explained that Mr. Nix's credits for active military service from August 1953 through August 1956 were not used because those credits had already been used by the Office of Personnel Management to qualify for another federal benefit civil service retirement benefits. (Id.) The ALJ further explained that even if Mr. Nix's military credits had not been used to determine his civil service retirement benefits, the amount of money Ms. Nix was receiving on her own earnings records (approximately $1500 per month) well exceeded the amount that she would receive for widow's benefits on Mr. Nix's earnings record (approximately $500 per month). (Id.) It was...
To continue reading
Request your trial