Hasty v. Commissioner, Social Security

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 9 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Commissioner, Social Security. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 12/19/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SHAWNTELL HASTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *

Civil Case No. JKB-17-1709

*

*

*

*

*

*

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to Standing Order 2014-01, the above-referenced case was referred to me to
review the pending dispositive motion and to make recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Rule 301.5(b)(ix). [ECF No. 4]. Plaintiff Shawntell Hasty filed this action pro
se under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the denial of her claim
for benefits by the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”).

[ECF No. 1].

The

Commissioner has filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Ms. Hasty filed her civil action
outside the applicable statute of limitations. [ECF No. 9]. No hearing is deemed necessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated below, I recommend that the Court grant
the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss.
On December 27, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an unfavorable
decision, finding that Ms. Hasty was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
[ECF No. 9-2, at 26-34]. In a Notice of Appeals Council Action (“Notice”) dated April 13,
2017, the Appeals Council (“AC”) denied Ms. Hasty’s request for review and stated, in relevant
part:

You have 60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review). The 60 days start
the day after you receive this letter. We assume you received this letter 5 days
after the date on it unless you show us that you did not receive it within the 5-day
period.
Id. at 43.
On June 22, 2017, Ms. Hasty petitioned this Court to review the Commissioner’s final
decision to deny her claim for benefits. [ECF No. 1]. On October 16, 2017, the Commissioner
filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that Ms. Hasty failed to file her civil action within the
applicable statute of limitations. [ECF No. 9]. On November 6, 2017, Ms. Hasty filed a
response in opposition to the Commissioner’s motion, contending that she did not receive the
Notice within the statutory time period. [ECF No. 11]. Specifically, Ms. Hasty argued: (1) that
she did not receive the Notice in a timely manner; and (2) that she requested an extension at the
administrative level. Id. This Court issued an order on November 30, 2017, instructing Ms.
Hasty to file documentation to support her contention that she requested an extension at the
administrative level. [ECF No. 12]. On December 14, 2017, Ms. Hasty filed a response to this
Court’s order, but did not include the requested documentation. [ECF No. 13].
The Commissioner argues that Ms. Hasty’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, because it was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations, and Ms.
Hasty did not request an extension of the deadline. [ECF No. 9-1, at 2-4]. Congress has
authorized lawsuits seeking judicial review of decisions by the Commissioner only under certain
limited conditions, including specified filing deadlines. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma,
357 U.S. 320, 336 (1958). The limitations period must therefore be strictly enforced, absent: (1)
an agreement by the Commissioner to toll the deadlines; or (2) a valid basis for equitable tolling
of the deadlines. “[B]ecause of the importance of respecting limitations periods, equitable
tolling is appropriate only ‘where the defendant has wrongfully deceived or misled the plaintiff
2

in order to conceal the existence of a cause of action.’” Kokotis v. U.S. Postal Serv., 223 F.3d
275, 280 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting English v. Pabst Brewing Co., 828 F.2d 1047, 1049 (4th Cir.
1987)).
In response to the Commissioner’s motion, Ms. Hasty contends: (1) that she did not
receive the Notice in a timely manner due to an incorrect address; and (2) that she asked for an
extension at the administrative level and “even submitted docutments [sic] that was not [sic]
taken into consideration.” Id. First, although the Notice contained the wrong address, see [ECF
No. 9-2, at 42], the AC mailed the Notice to the residential address provided by Ms. Hasty in her
Request for Review of Hearing Decision/Order, see id. at 41-42. Thus, any error is not the result
of any misconduct on the part of the Commissioner.

See Chao v. Virginia Dept. of

Transportation, 291 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Equitable tolling is not appropriate,
however, ‘where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving [her] legal rights.’”)
(quoting Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)).

Ms. Hasty also provided

documentation showing that the Notice was not mailed until April 17, 2017, four days after the
April 13, 2017 date on the Notice. See [ECF No. 9-2, at 49]. Even viewing the circumstances in
the light most favorable to Ms. Hasty and using the mailing date from the postmark, instead of
the letter, under the presumption set forth by Social Security regulations, Ms. Hasty received the
Notice on April 22, 2017—five days after the letter was mailed—and therefore was required to
file a complaint on June 21, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.901, 422.210(c). Ms. Hasty did not file
her action until June 22, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. Furthermore, Ms. Hasty has failed to provide any
evidence to support her allegation that she requested an extension at the administrative level. As
a result, equitable tolling is not warranted. Ms. Hasty filed her case after the statutory limitations
period had run. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

3

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss,
[ECF No. 9], be granted. Any objections to this Report and Recommendations must be served
and filed within fourteen (14) days, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Local Rule 301.5.b. I
direct the Clerk to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendations to Plaintiff at the address
listed on the docket.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge contained in the foregoing report within fourteen (14)
days after being served with a copy of this report may result in the waiver of any right to a de
novo review of the determinations contained in the report and such failure shall bar you from
challenging on appeal the findings and conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Judge,
except upon grounds of plain error.

Dated: December 19, 2017

/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

4