Lintz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 39

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/10/2019 RECOMMENDING that 33 Amended Motion for Protective Order and 37 Motion to Stay be denied. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEIDRA A. LINTZ,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:11-cv-2837-WBS-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff Deidra Lintz is the representative payee for Brandon Blackmon, a disabled

19

individual who receives Supplemental Security Income benefits. After Blackmon was overpaid

20

benefits, Lintz requested a waiver of the recovery of the overpaid amounts. The Commissioner

21

denied the request and Lintz then filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the

22

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her applications for waivers of

23

recovery of overpayment of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of

24

the Social Security Act. On October 20, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary

25

judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, remanded the matter

26

back to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), and entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor.

27

ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29. Plaintiff has now filed two pleadings—one styled as a motion for a

28

protective order and the other as a motion to stay—in which she appears to argue that the SSA
1

1

has failed to comply with this court’s remand order by scheduling another administrative hearing

2

to address her applications for fee waivers. ECF Nos. 33 & 37. The gist of her argument is that

3

she prevailed on summary judgement in this court and should not have to proceed with another

4

administrative hearing. As discussed below, plaintiff misunderstands this court’s prior ruling.

5

The order granting summary judgment ordered a remand to the Commissioner for the specific

6

purposed of conducting an administrative hearing. The remand order did not adjudicate the

7

underlying merits of whether plaintiff was entitled to a waiver of the overpayment.

8

I.

9

Background
Plaintiff is the mother and representative payee of Brandon Blackmon, who was

10

previously awarded SSI benefits. Administrative Record (“AR”) 15. In 2006, the Social Security

11

Administration informed plaintiff that there were overpayments of benefits due to unreported

12

income for the periods of March 1, 2005 through December 1, 2005 and November 2006 to April

13

2007. Id. at 20, 30-33. Plaintiff filed requests for waiver of the overpayment recovery (id. at

14

112-121), which were denied initially and on reconsideration (id. at 25-29, 36-41). After an

15

administrative hearing, administrative law judge Stanley R. Hogg (“ALJ Hogg”) issued a decision

16

denying plaintiff’s request. ALJ Hogg found that plaintiff’s own testimony demonstrated that

17

plaintiff was not “without fault” in causing or accepting overpayments. Id. at 59-62. Plaintiff’s

18

subsequent request for Appeals Council review was denied, leaving ALJ Hogg’s decision as the

19

final decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 69-71.

20

Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant action challenging the Commissioner’s denial of her

21

applications for waivers. ECF No. 1. In July 2012, the court granted the Commissioner’s

22

unopposed motion to remand the matter pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), finding

23

that meaningful review of ALJ Hogg’s decision could not be completed because a recording of

24

the administrative hearing was unavailable. ECF Nos. 15, 16. On April 26, 2013, a new hearing

25

was held before administrative law judge Peter F. Belli (“ALJ Belli”). AR 126-155. ALJ Belli

26

issued a decision denying plaintiff’s applications for waivers, also finding that plaintiff’s

27

testimony established that she was not “without fault” in causing or accepting the overpayments.

28

Id. at 15-19. Plaintiff sought review of that decision, but the Appeals Council declined to assume
2

1

jurisdiction, leaving the ALJ’s June 10, 2013 decision as the final decision of the Commissioner.

2

Id. at 3-4; see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(d).

3

Thereafter, this case was reopened and the parties filed cross-motions for summary

4

judgment. ECF Nos. 24, 25. On September 1, 2017, this court issued findings and

5

recommendations—which were subsequently adopted in full—concluding that plaintiff’s motion

6

for summary judgment should be granted and the matter remanded to the Social Security

7

Administration for further proceedings. ECF Nos. 27, 28. The court again found that the record

8

failed to show whether plaintiff was at fault in receiving the overpayment of benefits because

9

there is no transcript or recording of the testimony. AR 18. The record reflected that ALJ Belli

10

prohibited plaintiff from providing any testimony at the April 26, 2013 hearing despite the order

11

of this court remanding the matter for a hearing to be conducted for that very purpose. Instead,

12

ALJ Belli’s decision adopted nearly verbatim extensive portions of the prior decision issued by

13

ALJ Hogg, including the summary of plaintiff’s testimony from the first administrative hearing

14

and ALJ Hogg’s analysis and reasoning for finding that plaintiff was not without fault. See AR

15

59-62.

16

As there was no transcript of the first administrative hearing before ALJ Hogg and

17

plaintiff was precluded from testifying at the second hearing before ALJ Belli, the record

18

continued to lack any evidence supporting the ALJ Belli’s finding that plaintiff’s testimony

19

showed she at fault. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted, the

20

Commissioner’s motion was denied, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for

21

further proceedings.

22

II.

23

Discussion
In her motions, plaintiff appears to argue that the Commissioner is not complying with the

24

court’s order granting summary judgment in her favor because, after the matter was remanded,

25

the Social Security Administration scheduled a new hearing. ECF Nos. 33 & 37. She appears to

26

believe that further administrative proceedings, including a new hearing, are not appropriate since

27

she prevailed on summary judgment before this court. Id. She simply misinterprets the court’s

28

order.
3

1

The ruling by this court granting summary judgment for plaintiff did not find that she was

2

entitled to the waivers she sought. Instead, it merely determined that the denial of her

3

applications for waivers could not be upheld on the exiting record. The ALJ’s decision denying a

4

waiver was purportedly based on plaintiff’s testimony and the record was devoid of any evidence

5

regarding that testimony. See ECF No. 27.

6

Accordingly, to comply with the court’s remand order, the Commissioner was required to

7

conduct further administrative proceedings—which permissibly includes holding a new hearing—

8

and issue a new decision on whether plaintiff qualifies for waiver of recovery of overpayments.

9

III.

10
11

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a protective order

(ECF No. 33) and motion for a stay (ECF No. 37) be denied.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

16

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

17

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

18

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19

DATED: January 10, 2019.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4