Eystad v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 21 25 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 12-00923 SI

JOSEPH EYSTAD,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

/

16
17

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment in this Social Security appeal.

18

Based upon the Court’s review of the parties’ papers and the administrative record, the Court hereby

19

DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary

20

judgment. In so ruling, the Court makes no determination as to whether plaintiff is currently entitled

21

to Supplemental Security Income disability benefits (“SSI benefits”), but only holds that the ALJ

22

properly determined that at the time he issued his October 2010 decision, (1) plaintiff was not eligible

23

to receive SSI benefits because he held excess resources, and (2) plaintiff was overpaid SSI benefits due

24

to his excess resources.

25
26

BACKGROUND

27

Plaintiff Joseph D. Eystad II began receiving SSI benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security

28

Act in October 2004. Administrative Record (“AR”) 9. On September 29, 2009, the Social Security
Administration (“Agency”) issued a notice informing plaintiff that he was overpaid $25,418 of SSI

benefits from July 1, 2007 to October 1, 2009 because he had countable resources in excess of the $2000

2

resource limit for recipients of SSI.1 Id. The Agency stated in its notice to plaintiff that the excess

3

resources consisted of bank accounts in plaintiff’s name with a cumulative balance of approximately

4

$165,000, and that if plaintiff disagreed with the decision he was entitled to seek a waiver or to appeal

5

the decision. Id. On October 1, 2009, the Agency issued an additional notice informing plaintiff that

6

because he held bank accounts in his name that contained excess resources dating back to July 2007,

7

plaintiff would no longer receive SSI payments starting in November 2009. AR 71-81. On November

8

24, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration with the Agency, disputing the facts regarding

9

eligibility and the overpayment related to the excess resources. Id. The Agency denied plaintiff’s

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

request on February 25, 2010, noting that plaintiff alleged, without proof, that the excess resources from

11

the bank accounts did not belong to him. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a written request on April 19, 2010

12

for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Id.

13

On September 23, 2010, the ALJ held a hearing, where plaintiff appeared without representation.

14

Id. at 85-102. The ALJ informed plaintiff of his right to a representative and asked him if he wanted

15

time to obtain one, but plaintiff elected to proceed with the hearing unrepresented. Id. at 88. The ALJ

16

issued a decision on October 19, 2010, finding that (1) plaintiff was not eligible for SSI benefits because

17

he had countable resources that exceeded the statutory $2000 resource limit, and (2) plaintiff was liable

18

for the overpayment of $25,418 due to excess resources.2 AR 13. In so finding, the ALJ relied on

19

evidence that plaintiff had multiple bank accounts solely in his name or Social Security number that

20

together totaled approximately $165,000. AR 11. At the hearing, plaintiff testified that approximately

21

$160,000 of the money in the bank accounts in his name belonged to his father and was deposited at his

22

father’s request. AR 11. Plaintiff testified that he was not aware of the reason his father made this

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The Agency also issued a notice on August 29, 2009, informing plaintiff that he was
overpaid $1,035 of SSI benefits in June 2007 due to unreported income. AR 9, 60. Plaintiff did not
seek reconsideration on this issue, and the ALJ did not address it in his October 2010 decision.
Therefore, the issue is not before the Court.
2

Because there was no documentary evidence that plaintiff had ever requested a waiver of
the recovery of the overpayment, the ALJ made no finding as to whether plaintiff was at fault for
causing the overpayment. AR 10, 12. If plaintiff alleges that he is without fault in causing the
overpayment, he may file a waiver request at any time with the Modernized Supplemental Security
Income Claims System (“MSSICS”). See Program Operation Manual System (“POMS”) SI 02260.001;
20 C.F.R. § 416.552.
2

1

request, and indeed conceded that he told his father that depositing the money would probably get him

2

into trouble, but he did it anyway. Id. The ALJ also noted that plaintiff testified that, on the advice of

3

the Agency, plaintiff withdrew approximately $140,000 from the bank accounts and returned it to his

4

father, and closed all bank accounts in his name.3
The ALJ found that the record contained no evidence that plaintiff had submitted any

6

documentation to the Agency in 2007, 2008, or the first half of 2009 regarding the ownership of the

7

money in the bank accounts in his name. Id. The ALJ noted that the first evidence of ownership

8

submitted to the Agency was an August 30, 2009 handwritten note that plaintiff testified was written

9

by plaintiff’s father purporting to claim ownership of all the money in the bank accounts in plaintiff’s

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

name. Id.; see also AR 14. The ALJ, however, discredited this note as unreliable: It was written around

11

the same time in 2009 when plaintiff was initially notified of overpayments; it was neither made under

12

penalty of perjury nor in the presence of witnesses who also signed the document; plaintiff’s father

13

provided no contact information where he could be reached; the record contained no corroborating

14

documentation, such as bank statements; plaintiff gave evasive and vague testimony regarding his

15

father, his father’s whereabouts, and his father’s occupation; plaintiff’s testimony that the bank accounts

16

were opened after only a brief interaction with his father, and that plaintiff had had very little subsequent

17

interaction with his father, was contradicted by multiple documents showing a fair amount of account

18

activity; and finally, that multiple documents purportedly signed by plaintiff had varied signature styles.

19

AR 12. Finally, the ALJ found that there was no evidence in the record that the accounts at issue were

20

ever closed or that plaintiff’s name was removed from them. Id. Together, this evidence persuaded the

21

ALJ that the bank accounts belonged to plaintiff, that the money held in the accounts was controlled by

22

plaintiff, and that therefore plaintiff’s bank accounts qualified as resources in excess of the $2000 limit

23

required to receive SSI.

24

Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ’s decision, which the Appeals Council denied. AR 2-5.

25

Plaintiff subsequently filed a pro se complaint with this Court on February 24, 2012, seeking judicial

26
27
28

3

According to plaintiff, his father had spent approximately $20,000 of the original $160,000
by the time plaintiff went to withdraw the full sum of money.
3

1

review of the ALJ’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both parties have moved for summary

2

judgment.

3
4

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court’s review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited, and a final

6

administrative decision may be altered only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based

7

on legal error. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation

8

omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a

9

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

679 (9th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence consists of “more than a mere scintilla but less than a

11

preponderance.” Young v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 181, 183 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court must consider the

12

entire record, including evidence that both supports and detracts from the ALJ’s decision. See Aukland

13

v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001). But where evidence is “susceptible to more than

14

one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ’s conclusion that must be upheld.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 679

15

(citing Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995)).

16
17

DISCUSSION

18

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, seeking a determination that he is eligible for SSI

19

benefits and a reversal of the ALJ’s determination of overpayment. Plaintiff maintains the same

20

argument he stressed throughout the proceeding before the ALJ, that the approximately $165,000 in the

21

bank accounts in his name did not belong to him and that he spent none of it. Defendant also moves for

22

summary judgment, arguing that the ALJ properly determined that plaintiff received an overpayment

23

and that he was not eligible for SSI benefits. For the reasons described below, the Court concludes that

24

there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that at the time of the ALJ’s decision

25

plaintiff had received an overpayment, and that he was not eligible for SSI benefits.

26
27
28
4

1

I.

Overpayment

2

Where an individual has been overpaid benefits under Title XVI, the Agency will seek an

3

adjustment or recovery of benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.535. An “overpayment” means a “payment of more

4

than the amount due for any period, including any amounts of State Supplementary payments which are

5

due and administered by the [Agency].” 20 C.F.R. § 416.537(a). The ALJ determined that plaintiff was

6

overpaid $25,418 during the period between July 2007 and October 2009.
An individual is not eligible for SSI benefits, and thus can said to have been overpaid, if he has

8

“resources” exceeding $2000. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205. Therefore, in order to determine whether the

9

ALJ properly found that plaintiff was overpaid, the only issue the Court needs to address is whether

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

plaintiff had countable resources that exceeded the $2000 regulatory limit between July 2007 and

11

October 2009.

12

“Resources” means cash or other liquid assets or any real or personal property that an individual

13

owns and could convert to cash to be used for his or her support and maintenance. 20 C.F.R.

14

§ 416.1201(a). If an individual has the “right, authority, or power to liquidate the property or his or her

15

share of the property, it is considered a resource.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1201(a)(1). When an individual

16

holds funds in a financial institution account, these funds constitute “an individual’s resource if the

17

individual owns the account and can use the funds for his or her support and maintenance.” 20 C.F.R.

18

§ 416.1208(a). The Agency determines “whether an individual owns the account and can use the funds

19

for his or her support and maintenance by looking at how the individual holds the account, . . . [which]

20

is reflected in the way the account is titled.” Id. “If an individual is designated as the sole owner of the

21

account by the account title,” which the record reflects here, “and can withdraw funds and use them for

22

his or her support and maintenance, all of the funds, regardless of their source, are that individual’s

23

resource.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1208(b); see also POMS SI 01140.200A2. As long as these conditions are

24

met, there is a non-rebuttable presumption that the individual owns all of the funds in the account. Id.;

25

see also POMS SI 01140.200.

26

The Court concludes that the ALJ relied on substantial evidence in determining that plaintiff held

27

countable resources in excess of the $2000 limit between July 2007 and October 2009, and that he was

28

therefore overpaid SSI benefits during that period. In response to the ALJ’s question: “So if I’m
5

1

understanding this correctly, you’re not disputing the fact that you did have excess resources, at least

2

technically, in your name, correct?”, plaintiff responded “Yes, sir. Yes, sir.” See AR 94. In issuing his

3

decision, the ALJ relied on the evidence that plaintiff had multiple bank accounts exclusively in his

4

name, and under his Social Security number, and not in his father’s name or his father’s Social Security

5

number. AR 11, 15-27. These bank accounts qualify as “resources” within the meaning of the law, and

6

held funds far in excess of the $2000 limit without legal restrictions on plaintiff’s ability to access the

7

funds. The ALJ noted that while plaintiff asserted that the few interactions he had with his father

8

regarding his father’s request that plaintiff open the accounts were brief, the evidence contained bank

9

records showing “a fair amount of account activity” in 2006 and 2007. See AR 12, 17-27, 90, 92.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The only documentary evidence plaintiff submitted to the ALJ to support his contention that the

11

money did not belong to him was a handwritten note, purportedly written by plaintiff’s father, stating

12

“all monies in question from Bank of America in my son’s account were all mine. I have possession

13

of said monies.” The ALJ found that the note was unreliable, because it was written around the same

14

time in 2009 that the Agency notified plaintiff of overpayment, there was no documentation to

15

corroborate what it said, it was not signed in the presence of any witnesses or under penalty of perjury,

16

and plaintiff’s testimony regarding his father and his whereabouts was evasive. AR 12. Additionally,

17

even if the Court were to find the note reliable, the funds still constituted resources belonging to plaintiff

18

under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1208 because plaintiff had control over the accounts.

19

The Court concludes that the ALJ relied on substantial evidence in finding that plaintiff

20

controlled resources in excess of the $2000 limit and was accordingly overpaid SSI benefits between

21

July 2007 and October 2009.

22
23

II.

Eligibility to Receive SSI Benefits

24

Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of his SSI payments. See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Dkt. 21-1), at 1. The

25

Court, however, may only review the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff was not eligible to receive SSI

26

benefits at the time of the ALJ’s October 2010 decision. Therefore, the Court makes no finding as to

27

whether plaintiff is currently entitled to reinstatement of his SSI benefits.

28
6

1

A claimant is not eligible for SSI benefits if he has resources exceeding $2000. 20 C.F.R.

2

§ 416.1205. After reviewing the record at the time the ALJ issued his October 2010 decision, the Court

3

finds that the ALJ properly determined that the record contained no reliable evidence that plaintiff had

4

closed the bank accounts in his name that contained excess resources, had removed his designation as

5

the owner of the accounts or had returned the funds to his father, or that the accounts contained a

6

balance that no longer exceeded the $2000 regulatory limit. AR 12.4 Accordingly, the Court concludes

7

that the ALJ properly determined that as of October 19, 2010, plaintiff was not entitled to SSI benefits.

8
9

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

11

GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 21, 25. As noted at the beginning of

12

this order, this Court makes no determination as to whether plaintiff is currently entitled to

13

Supplemental Security Income disability benefits.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: April 2, 2013

18

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
4

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has attached two pieces of
evidence, both dated after the ALJ’s October 2010 decision. First, plaintiff has attached a letter from
Bank of America confirming that as of June 2011 plaintiff held no active or open accounts in his name.
See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Dkt. 21-1), at 2. Second, plaintiff has attached a “Customer Relationship
Inquiry” showing that his Bank of America Gold ATM card is blocked and has not been used since
September 2008. Id. at 3.
This evidence was not presented to the ALJ, and the Court is only permitted to review the
propriety of the ALJ’s decision in light of the evidence presented to the ALJ, absent a showing that
“there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for failure to incorporate such
evidence into the record” in the prior proceeding. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff has not presented
a sufficient justification for failing to submit this kind of evidence to the ALJ.
Further, the evidence merely shows that plaintiff had no bank accounts in his name at Bank of
America as of June 2011; it does not show that plaintiff held no accounts in his name at the time the ALJ
issued his decision in October 2010. Therefore the evidence provides no basis from which the Court
could find that the ALJ erred in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to SSI benefits during the
prior time frame (2007 - 2009). This Court makes no finding as to whether plaintiff currently holds any
funds of any kind, or is otherwise now entitled to benefits.
7