Quillinan v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 17 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/12/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/12/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 No. C 11-05136 SI KEVIN QUILLINAN, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12 / 13 14 Due to a debilitating injury to his lower leg, plaintiff Quillinan applied for Supplemental Security 15 Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2. On April 20, 16 2010 an Administrative Law Judge determined plaintiff was eligible for SSI benefits. Docket No. 17, 17 Decl. of Adam Terry at ¶ 4 (Terry Decl.). Plaintiff asserts that on or around June or July 2010, plaintiff 18 received $2,000, a portion of his retroactive SSI benefit award.1 Complaint, ¶ 3. By letter dated August 19 11, 2010, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) issued plaintiff a notice that he was entitled to a 20 total of $12,865.30 in retroactive SSI benefits. Terry Decl., Ex. B. The notice included SSA’s 21 calculation of plaintiff’s eligible retroactive benefit payment by month. Id. at 1-2. The notice did not 22 inform plaintiff of the required process that plaintiff must follow if plaintiff disagreed with SSA’s 23 decision. Id. at 3. The header “IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS DECISION” is printed on the 24 letter, but it lacks text describing the steps of the administrative appeal process. 25 Plaintiff alleges that on August 15, 2010, he contacted SSA personnel to contest SSA’s 26 calculation of his retroactive SSI benefit award. Complaint, ¶¶ 4-7. Plaintiff asserts that he spoke with 27 Mrs. Nobuye of the Berkeley Social Security Office who assured plaintiff that SSA miscalculated the 28 1 Defendant contends that plaintiff received $2,110.80 of past due SSI benefits on August 23, 2010. Terry Decl., Ex. B. 1 retroactive award and that “ ‘an appeal won’t be necessary because we are taking care of the matter right 2 now.’ ” Complaint, ¶ 6. In the months following, plaintiff spoke to and wrote SSA personnel several 3 times to (1) seek payment of his remaining retroactive award and (2) challenge SSA’s decision to reduce 4 plaintiff’s retroactive award because of in-kind loans that plaintiff received. Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 7,11. On October 19, 2011, plaintiff filed this pro se action seeking an accounting and payment of his 6 retroactive award. On February 2, 2012, SSA gave plaintiff $10,754.50, SSA’s calculation of plaintiff’s 7 remaining retroactive award. Opp’n, Ex. 2; Terry Decl., Ex. B. On March 15, 2012, defendant filed a 8 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative 9 remedies. The SSA argues that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 not appeal from the February 2, 2012 notice of final payment, and therefore SSA has not rendered a final 11 decision. On April 13, 2012, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Defendant filed a reply on 12 April 19, 2012. 13 The Court reviewed the record and taking as true plaintiff’s allegations, finds that SSA gave 14 plaintiff inadequate and arguably incorrect information as to his right and need to appeal SSA’s 15 determination of his retroactive benefits. However, the Court cannot review the merits of plaintiff’s 16 claims until plaintiff pursues the administrative appeal process and SSA issues a final determination. 17 Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendant’s MOTION TO DISMISS. Defendant shall allow 18 plaintiff to exhaust the administrative appeal process, and plaintiff shall file, within 65 days from the 19 date of this Order, an administrative appeal to SSA as to the determination of his retroactive benefits. 20 This case is administratively closed. Plaintiff may move to reopen the case if, after exhausting his 21 administrative remedies, he is not satisfied with SSA’s final determination of the amount of his 22 retroactive benefits. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2012 25 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?