Tarnow v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 10/25/2019. (ma,)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DEBORAH T., 1
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of )
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
No. 18 CV 3186
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
October 25, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Deborah T. (“Deborah”) has already been determined to be eligible for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). She brings this action seeking judicial review
of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) decision to withhold certain benefits
resulting from a calculation error. Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for
summary judgment. 2 For the following reasons, Deborah’s motion is denied and the
government’s is granted:
Procedural History
Deborah
first
began
receiving
SSI
benefits
on
January
1,
1993.
(Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 355.) From October 2001 to 2004, the SSA overpaid
Pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 22, the court uses only Plaintiff’s first
name and last initial in this decision to protect her privacy to the extent possible.
1
The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
(R. 27), but later withdrew that motion, (R. 34). Given the court’s independent
obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the present dispute,
the court confirms that no jurisdictional bar precludes judicial review here.
2
Deborah $13,405.48 because of “an increase in wages, cash, or special income.” (Id.)
Then in 2011 the SSA overpaid her $3,870.30 because of her husband’s
unemployment compensation.
(Id.)
When Deborah received notices of the
overpayment, she requested reconsideration and waivers―arguing that she was not
at fault for the overpayment―in an effort to avoid repaying the SSA. (Id. at 355-64,
372-79, 412-20.) The SSA denied her request and, after a hearing, an administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) affirmed the denial on January 25, 2013. (Id. at 352-64.) The ALJ
found that while Deborah was “overpaid within the meaning of the Act,” she was not
without fault because she failed to “report events affecting payments and timely
failed to furnish the necessary information.” (Id.)
Deborah reapplied for SSI on October 17, 2014. 3 (Id. at 47, 214-23.) On
December 10, 2014, the SSA approved Deborah’s SSI claim but informed her that
$73.30 would be withheld from her monthly benefits to satisfy the preexisting SSI
overpayment. (Id. at 47-48.) In April 2015 the SSA informed Deborah that her
withholding would be reduced to $29 per month beginning the following month. (Id.
at 77.) Then in June 2015, the SSA informed Deborah that from November 2014 to
June 2015 she had been underpaid SSI benefits in the amount of $1,643.87. (Id. at
103-05.) Given Deborah’s outstanding overpayment balance of $14,049.64 at that
time, the SSA notified her that $1,473.84 of the underpayment would be withheld to
Though Deborah’s medical condition appeared to improve in 1997, an ALJ
reaffirmed her disability status after a hearing in June 1998. (See, e.g., A.R. 24-27.)
Deborah then refiled for SSI benefits in 2010 and was determined to be disabled. (Id.
at 400-05.) Any gaps in Deborah’s SSI benefits are not germane to the issue raised
in this appeal.
3
2
satisfy part of the overpayment.
(Id.)
On July 30, 2015, Deborah requested
reconsideration, but the request was denied because it was “a duplicate of an earlier
request” and “no new issues” had surfaced since the prior request. (Id. at 117-20,
127-28.)
In August 2015 Deborah requested a hearing before an ALJ. (Id. at 129-32,
235.) Her request was granted and on October 20, 2015, Deborah appeared for the
hearing along with her attorney. (Id. at 11, 236-43, 268-93.) Deborah did not contest
the finding that she was at fault for the overpayment or that the matter is in
collection.
(Id. at 12, 244.)
However, she disputed the application of the
underpayment to satisfy part of the overpayment. (Id. at 244.) The ALJ issued a
decision in December 2015 denying Deborah’s request to bar the SSA from applying
the underpayment to the overpayment balance. (Id. at 11-14.) The ALJ found that
the “underpayment was properly applied to recoup a portion of [Deborah’s]
overpayment” and that she did not present evidence showing that “recovery of her
overpayment was against equity and good conscience.” (Id. at 12-14.)
When the Appeals Council declined Deborah’s request for review, (id. at 3-7),
Deborah filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, see
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the parties consented to this court’s jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c); (R. 12).
Analysis
Deborah moves for summary judgment claiming that the SSA applied incorrect
standards and acted in a manner inconsistent with the applicable regulations when
3
it withheld the underpayment owed to her.
(R. 18, Pl.’s Mem. at 3-6.)
The
government in turn cross-moves for summary judgment, arguing that the SSA
properly withheld the underpayment to partly satisfy an overpayment made to her.
(R. 28, Govt.’s Mem. at 6-12.) The court reviews the ALJ’s decision to ensure that it
is supported by substantial evidence, meaning “more than a scintilla” but no more
than “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion,” and to ensure that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard.
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Deborah argues that SSA regulations provide that the SSA may “waive
adjustment or recovery of an overpayment when an individual on whose behalf
waiver is being considered is without fault (as defined in § 416.552) and adjustment
or recovery would be against equity and good conscience.” (R. 18, Pl.’s Mem. at 3-6
(quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.554 (emphasis in original)).) Section 416.554 further states
that “[a]djustment or recovery is considered to be against equity and good conscience
if an individual changed his or her position for the worse or relinquished a valuable
right because of reliance upon a notice that payment would be made or because of the
incorrect payment itself.”
Id. (emphasis in original).
Because the SSA’s own
calculation error resulted in the underpayment, Deborah asserts that withholding
the underpayment runs contrary to equity and good conscience. (R. 18, Pl.’s Mem. at
4.) Insofar as the ALJ found otherwise, Deborah contends that the ALJ applied
POMS SI 02260.25 and GN 02250.150, which address only the first part of the
4
regulation—whether a claimant changed her position or relinquished a valuable
right―and not whether the incorrect payment, in and of itself, requires a finding that
an adjustment is against equity and good conscience. (Id. at 4-5.)
The government responds that Deborah incorrectly points to Section 416.554
for support because that regulation applies only to waiver of an overpayment, and
Deborah does not contest the validity of the overpayment in this proceeding. (R. 28,
Govt.’s Mem. at 8-9.) The government also notes that the ALJ carefully considered
Deborah’s argument but relied instead on Section 416.543 in finding that the SSA
had properly applied the underpayment to the existing overpayment. (Id. at 12
(citing A.R. 12-13).)
The government cites other SSA rules and regulations
supporting the ALJ’s finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.558; POMS SI 02101.001(B)(6),
02101.002(A)(1)(c), 02220.015(A)(4)(a).
The court finds that the ALJ relied upon substantial evidence to support his
decision and did not commit a legal error. Indeed, he heard Deborah’s testimony,
reviewed her claim, and determined that her underpayment was properly applied to
satisfy a part of the overpayment. (A.R. 12-13 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.543).) As the
ALJ noted in his decision, “the claimant, through her representative . . . is not
contesting the existence of the overpayment. Rather, she is seeking to recoup the
underpayment that was withheld to pay down her overpayment balance.” (Id. at 12.)
The ALJ found no evidence that “any underpayment was improperly applied to
reduce the claimant’s overpayment” or that “withholding her back due benefits was
against equity and good conscience.” (Id. at 13-14.)
5
The ALJ also considered Deborah’s argument that the SSA should have
applied a 10-percent limit to her overpayment adjustment because she is a recipient
of concurrent benefits under Title II and Title XVI. (Id.) Specifically, in a posthearing brief, Deborah explained that at the time she became eligible for SSI benefits
under Title XVI in November 2014, she was already receiving disability benefits
under Title II. (Id. at 244.) As such, she argued that the SSA’s concurrent benefit
rule limiting the collection to a maximum of 10 percent should have gone into effect
at that time, but it did not until July 2015, resulting in an unfair collection amount
during that time period. (Id.) The ALJ rejected Deborah’s argument because the SSA
rule “set[ting] forth the process” for adjusting the concurrent rate benefit permits a
continued collection at a “100 percent withholding until appropriate systems changes
are made to automatically apply the 10 percent withholding.” (Id. at 13 (citing GN
02210.045B).)
In Deborah’s case, “‘the system’ automatically withheld the
underpayment and applied it to the claimant’s overpayment [until] the appropriate
systems changes were made to apply the 10 percent withholding.” (Id.) Accordingly,
the ALJ found no error in the amount of benefits withheld during that period. (Id.)
Additionally, the ALJ considered Deborah’s argument that the SSA violated
SI 02260.025 and GN 02250.150, which “set forth criteria for determining whether
overpayment recovery is against equity and good conscience.” (Id. at 14.) Again, the
ALJ found no evidence supporting Deborah’s claim. (Id.) And, in any event, such a
standard applies to overpayment recovery, which Deborah does not contest.
6
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Deborah’s motion is denied and the government’s is
granted.
ENTER:
____________________________________
Young B. Kim
United States Magistrate Judge
7
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?