Van Buskirk v. Shalala, Civ. A. No. 92-11339-WGY.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 92-11339-WGY. |
| Citation | 842 F. Supp. 1477 |
| Parties | Frank VAN BUSKIRK, Plaintiff, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Frank Van Buskirk, pro se.
Thomas E. Kanwit, U.S. Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for defendant.
Appellant Frank Van Buskirk ("Van Buskirk") appeals from an order of the Social Security Administration Court holding him responsible for overpayment of Social Security benefits following notification of termination. Van Buskirk seeks an order reversing this decision.1
The facts are undisputed. In 1979, Van Buskirk, a Boston iron worker, slipped on the icy walkway leading to the back door of his home and suffered a compound fracture of his leg. He was unable to work thereafter. Assisted at first by the Veterans Administration, Van Buskirk became eligible for Social Security disability insurance benefits ("benefits") as of January, 1981, when the Social Security Administration determined that he was disabled under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.
Although disabled, Van Buskirk worked during the nine-month grace period in which he could be employed and concurrently receive benefits.2 In July, 1981, the Social Security Administration notified Van Buskirk by mail that if he was able to continue working his benefits would terminate commencing September, 1981. After receiving the letter Van Buskirk continued to work, earning $12,000 per year. Due to an administrative oversight, however, the Social Security Administration continued to issue disability checks after September, 1981. Van Buskirk continued to cash them even though he had received the July, 1981 notice of cessation and a February 22, 1982 notice informing him that he was no longer disabled and therefore no longer eligible for benefits.
Van Buskirk earned $19,000 in 1982; $2,100 in 1983;3 and $41,000 in 1984 in addition to the monthly disability checks he continued to cash until March, 1984. On April 23, 1984, the Social Security Administration notified Van Buskirk that he was responsible for a $33,831.20 overpayment. On March 11, 1985, Van Buskirk requested a reconsideration and a waiver of recovery of the overpayment, asserting his financial inability to repay.
Upon review, the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("the Secretary") found Van Buskirk at fault for accepting the disability checks after he received notice of termination, and noted that Van Buskirk had been gainfully employed for the entire three-year overpayment period. Van Buskirk later requested an Appeals Council review of the Secretary's decision, but the Appeals Council denied his request.
The final decision of the Secretary is now before this Court for review. The Secretary held that Van Buskirk: (1) was not entitled to disability benefits after receiving the February, 1982 cessation notice; (2) was at fault for accepting the $33,831.20 overpayment of disability checks; and, (3) is not entitled to a waiver of recovery of the overpayment because of his allegedly insufficient resources.
II. ANALYSIS
In reviewing administrative decisions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Court is prohibited from substituting its own evaluation of the evidence. Viehman v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 223, 227 (11th Cir.1982). Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), states that the appropriate role of the Court in such matters is limited to a close scrutiny of the record to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the Secretary's findings. "This evidence must be more than a scintilla, but need not be a large or considerable amount." Turner v. Sullivan, 741 F.Supp. 263, 267 (D.D.C.1990).
Generally, a claimant is at fault in receiving an excess payment if he knew or could have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Setian v. Callahan
...Anderson v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1121 (9th Cir.1990); Viehman v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 223, 227 (11th Cir.1982); Van Buskirk v. Shalala, 842 F.Supp. 1477, 1478 (D.Mass. 1994). What constitutes "fault" on the part of a recipient depends upon whether the facts show that the incorrect payment resu......
- Westvaco Corp., Envelope Div. v. Campbell, Civ. A. No. 93-30129-F.
-
Henriquez v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 05-30289-KPN.
...retain their disabled status while they test their ability to work during a nine-month `trial work period' "); Van Buskirk v. Shalala, 842 F.Supp. 1477, 1478 n. 2 (D.Mass.1994) ("As incentive for disability beneficiaries to return to work, they are allowed a nine month trial work period.") ......
-
Table of cases
...Ausdle v. Shalala , 19 F.3d 32 (Table), No. 92-35413 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 1994), § 1210.12 A-71 TABLE OF CASES Van Buskirk v. Shalala , 842 F. Supp. 1477, 1478 (D. Mass. 1994), § 410.5 Vandenboom v. Barnhart , 412 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. June 20, 2005), 8th-05 Vandenboom v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 745 ......
-
Table of Cases
...28, 2005), 6th-05 Van Ausdle v. Shalala , 19 F.3d 32 (Table), No. 92-35413 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 1994), § 1210.12 Van Buskirk v. Shalala , 842 F. Supp. 1477, 1478 (D. Mass. 1994), § 410.5 Vandenboom v. Barnhart , 412 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. June 20, 2005), 8th-05 Vandenboom v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 74......
-
Nondisability issues
...v. Sullivan , 914 F.2d 1121 (9 th Cir. 1990); Viehman v. Schweiker , 679 F.2d 223, 227 (11 th Cir. 1982); Van Buskirk v. Shalala , 842 F. Supp. 1477, 1478 (D. Mass. 1994). Whether the recipient is at “fault” depends upon whether the facts show that the incorrect payment resulted from: 1) An......