Rodysill v. Astrue
Filing
25
ORDER - The Commissioner's decision is affirmed, the appeal is denied, and judgment in favor of the defendant will be entered in a separate document. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (AOA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICK THOMAS RODYSILL,
Plaintiff,
4:12CV3110
vs.
ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
This is an action for judicial review of the Social Security Administration (SSA)
Commissioner’s final decision refusing to allow waiver of recovery for an overpayment
of disability benefits for Mick Thomas Rodysill (Rodysill), despite a finding Rodysill was
not at fault.
Rodysill argues the Commissioner erred by taking Rodysill’s spouse’s
income, their purchase of a home, and a projected income increase into consideration.
Rodysill filed a brief (Filing No. 17) in support of the appeal. The Commissioner filed the
administrative record (AR.) (Filing No. 15) and a brief (Filing No. 22) in response.
Rodysill filed a brief (Filing No. 23) in reply. Section 405(g) provides for judicial review
of a “final decision” made by the Commissioner in a proceeding, such as this, brought
under Title II of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.1
BACKGROUND
On February 5, 1996, at age twenty, Rodysill filed an application for disability
benefits based on his inability to work due to diagnosed bipolar disorder (AR. 24). The
SSA awarded Rodysill benefits effective January 1, 1996 (AR. 25). The benefits were
payable to Rodysill’s mother, Marlene Rodysill, who was the representative payee (AR.
262). Although Rodysill did not reside with his mother for the entire period, Rodysill and
his mother worked together to report Rodysill’s work activity by providing pay stubs to
the SSA on a bi-monthly basis (AR. 395-397, 437-446, 544-545).
Rodysill has a
Bachelor’s Degree in art education and works at Lincoln Public Schools as a paraeducator (AR. 537, 539). Rodysill stated he was working twenty-five hours each week
1
The parties consented to jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). See Filing No. 13.
during the 2009-2010 school year, but thought he might work thirty hours each week
during the 2010-2011 school year (AR. 540). Rodysill was married in 2007 to Jennifer,
who teaches French at a middle school (AR. 246, 538).
On December 2, 2006, the SSA sent Rodysill a notice outlining information
forming the basis of a proposed decision concluding Rodysill’s disability had ended
because he had engaged in substantial work since April 2003 (AR. 147-150). On April
22, 2007, the SSA sent Rodysill a Notice of Disability Cessation, stating that since July
2003 he did not qualify for benefits and he had been overpaid in the amount of
$27,039.00 (AR. 163). Rodysill admits he engaged in substantial work activity starting
in June 2004 and continuing through April 2007. See Filing No. 17 - Brief p. 2; AR. 190.
On March 29, 2009, the SSA sent a Notice of Overpayment, changing Rodysill’s end
date for benefits to June 2004 and noting the overpayment was $21,929.00 (AR. 190).
On April 23, 2009, Rodysill filed a Request for Waiver of Overpayment Recovery
or Change in Repayment Rate with the SSA (AR. 193). In support of the request,
Rodysill stated he lived with his wife (AR. 196). Additionally, Rodysill listed two savings
accounts, two cars, and a checking account as assets totaling $2,810.88 (AR. 196).
Rodysill listed his and his wife’s monthly household income from employment as
$3,815.39, with Rodysill’s income comprising $809.72 (AR. 197).
Rodysill listed
monthly household expenses as $2,844.20, including a $849.09 mortgage payment for
an $88,500 home Rodysill and his wife purchased with a $500.00 down payment on
September 15, 2009 (AR. 13, 358, 189-199).
On September 30, 2009, the SSA informed Rodysill it could not approve the
request for waiver based on the facts contained in the request (AR. 227).
The
September 30, 2009, letter scheduled a meeting for Rodysill with an SSA employee to
review the file and allow document supplementation prior to a final decision (AR. 227).
On October 31, 2009, the SSA determined Rodysill was not eligible for waiver because
he should have known he was ineligible for benefits he received while engaging in
substantial gainful activity (AR. 229-230). Thus the SSA found Rodysill was at fault for
the overpayment (AR. 229). Based on Rodysill’s household income and expenses, the
2
SSA proposed he make monthly payments of $300.00 until the SSA recovered the
entire overpayment amount (AR. 230).2
On November 17, 2009, Rodysill requested review of the October 31, 2009,
determination (AR. 233). In support of the review, Rodysill submitted an April 7, 2010,
financial statement listing his household income as $3,540.00, with Rodysill’s income
comprising $640.00, and household expenses as $3,063.09 (AR. 247-249).
The
expense amount included $264.00 a month for weekly colonic treatments and
supplements (AR. 249). An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on July 14,
2010 (AR. 526-553).
Rodysill failed to provide information that the colonics were
medically necessary or prescribed, so the amount was excluded as an ordinary and
necessary living expense (AR. 22, 533-534).
On August 25, 2010, the ALJ determined Rodysill was liable for the
overpayment, which would not be waived under the circumstances (AR. 23). Although
the ALJ found Rodysill was not at fault for causing the overpayment, she determined
recovery of the overpayment would not defeat the purpose of Title II of the Act or be
against equity and good conscience (AR. 21-22).
The Appeals Council denied
Rodysill’s request for review on April 5, 2012 (AR. 7).
Rodysill now seeks judicial
review of the ALJ’s determination as it represents the Commissioner’s final decision.
Rodysill does not dispute the amount of the overpayment.
Instead, Rodysill
argues recovery of the overpayment in his case defeats the purpose of Title II of the Act
or is against equity and good conscience. See Filing No. 17 - Brief p. 1. Rodysill
contends the ALJ erred by considering (1) Rodysill may receive a raise in pay after the
date of the hearing; (2) Rodysill’s wife’s income; and (3) Rodysill’s purchase of a home.
The Commissioner counters the ALJ properly concluded waiver of recovery was
inappropriate based on Rodysill’s self-reported household income and expenses
resulting in an excess sufficient to cover a modest monthly repayment installment. See
Filing No. 22 - Response p. 1.
2
The October 31, 2009, letter states the proposed payment amount resulted in a recovery period greater
than the “required” three-year recovery period, which would require $609 monthly payments in this case
(AR. 230).
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Federal courts have jurisdiction over social security claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), which permits judicial review of a final decision of the social security
commissioner.” Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2011). A district court is to
affirm the Commissioner’s findings if supported by “substantial evidence on the record
as a whole.” Sipp, 641 F.3d at 781. “Substantial evidence is defined as less than a
preponderance but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support
the conclusion.”
Young v. Astrue, 702 F.3d 489, 491 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotations and citations omitted); see also Minor v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir.
2009) (noting “the ‘substantial evidence on the record as a whole’ standard requires a
more rigorous review of the record than does the ‘substantial evidence’ standard”). “If
substantial evidence supports the decision, then [the court] may not reverse, even if
inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, and even if [the court] may
have reached a different outcome.” McNamara v. Astrue, 590 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir.
2010).
The individual seeking waiver of overpayment recovery has the burden of
proving he is entitled to waiver. Sipp, 641 F.3d at 781.
DISCUSSION
When an incorrect amount of payment has been made under the disability
insurance program, the Act requires the Commissioner to make the proper adjustment
or recovery. 42 U.S.C. § 404(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.501. If the Commissioner made an
overpayment, the Act directs the Commissioner to reduce future payments or obtain a
refund from either the person who received the benefits or any other person whose
wages or income were the basis of the payments to the overpaid person. 42 U.S.C.
§ 404(a)(1)(A). Even so, the Act prohibits “adjustment of payments to, or recovery by
the United States from, any person who is without fault if such adjustment or recovery
would defeat the purposes of [the Act] or would be against equity and good
conscience.” Id. § 404(b); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.506(a).
An individual may request
waiver of recovery by showing a prohibition applies. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.506(c). In
determining whether waiver is allowed under the Act, an ALJ relies on the Program
Operations Manual System (POMS).
POMS are the SSA’s internal procedural
4
guidelines and “are entitled to respect as publicly available operating instructions for
processing Social Security claims.” Taylor v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir.
2005) (citation omitted). “While these internal rules do not have legal force and do not
bind the Commissioner, courts should consider them in their findings.” Hartfield v.
Barnhart, 384 F.3d 986, 988 (8th Cir. 2004).
The ALJ determined Rodysill was without fault for the overpayment when
considering his mental impairments and sincere attempts to comply with the SSA’s rules
and procedures requiring him to report his work activity to prevent an overpayment of
benefits (AR. 21).
The ALJ noted “[Rodysill] and his mother provided letters with
attached pay stubs to report his work activity, but a work review was not completed until
later and the claimant continued to receive his Title II disability benefit payments, which
resulted in the overpayment” (AR. 21). The ALJ found Marlene Rodysill’s testimony
credible about responding to all SSA correspondence, despite conflicting and confusing
notices, because her testimony was consistent with the evidence (AR. 21). The ALJ
also noted Marlene Rodysill testified Rodysill “purchased a home and incurred other
expenses with full knowledge that the overpayment appeal was pending” (AR. 21).
Because the ALJ determined Rodysill was without fault, he is eligible for waiver of
repayment if adjustment or recovery would defeat the purposes of the Act or would be
against equity and good conscience.
A.
The Purpose of Title II of the Act
Under the Act, recovery defeats the purpose of Title II if recovery “deprive[s] a
person of income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.508(a). The regulation explicitly notes the determination, “depends upon whether
the person has an income or financial resources sufficient for more than ordinary and
necessary needs, or is dependent upon all of his current benefits for such needs.” Id.
[O]rdinary and necessary expenses include:
(1) Fixed living expenses, such as food and clothing, rent,
mortgage payments, utilities, maintenance, insurance . . .,
taxes, installment payments, etc.;
(2) Medical, hospitalization, and other similar expenses;
(3) Expenses for the support of others for whom the
individual is legally responsible; and
5
(4) Other miscellaneous expenses which may reasonably be
considered as part of the individual’s standard of living.
Id.
Moreover, “recovery will defeat the purposes of title II in . . . situations where the
person from whom recovery is sought needs substantially all of his current income
(including social security monthly benefits) to meet current ordinary and necessary living
expenses.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.508(b). Stated another way, “[d]uring recovery, if a person
goes into debt to meet his/her ordinary and necessary living expenses, recovery will
defeat the purpose of title II at that time.” Program Operations Manual System (POMS)
GN § 02250.115, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/.
The ALJ determined recovery from Rodysill would not defeat the purpose of Title
II of the Act because he “does not need substantially all of his household income to
meet current ordinary and necessary living expenses” (AR. 22). The ALJ evaluated the
April 23, 2009, and April 7, 2010, financial statements, hearing testimony, and medical
evidence to make her determination (AR. 22). Specifically, the ALJ noted the financial
statements indicate a financial ability to repay the overpayment (AR. 22). The ALJ
found Rodysill would not suffer a hardship if required to repay the overpayment because
he has been working as a paraprofessional and would likely work additional hours in the
future (AR. 22). Additionally, the ALJ recognized Rodysill’s comments the overpayment
and recovery came as a shock and surprise, but after he received notice he may have
to make $300 monthly payments for recovery, Rodysill purchased a house and
increased his other expenses (AR. 22). The ALJ acknowledged Rodysill’s argument
that it was not fair to require his wife to make payments toward the recovery, however
the ALJ stated Rodysill’s wife jointly committed to the house purchase and other joint
expenses (AR. 22). The ALJ credited Rodysill for completing college while receiving
disability benefits and having a good response to medication for his underlying
impairment (AR. 22).
Rodysill argues the ALJ erred by including Rodysill’s wife’s income and failing to
apportion expenses when determining whether Rodysill had sufficient income to meet
his ordinary and necessary living expenses. See Filing No. 23 - Reply p. 2-3. The ALJ
relied on Rodysill’s financial statements and the POMS.
Under the guidelines, “[a]
husband, wife and any dependents living in the same household comprise a single
6
financial unit, with all income and resources available to each member of the
household.” POMS GN 02250.130(A)(1). Similarly, the ALJ “[c]onsider[s] income to a
spouse and dependents as being available to the person requesting waiver.” POMS
GN 02250.120(A)(1).
Ultimately, when determining whether recovery defeats the
purpose of the Act, the ALJ must evaluate “the circumstances of the household of which
the person is a member.” POMS GN 02250.130(A)(1). Applying these guidelines, the
ALJ combined Rodysill and Jennifer Rodysill’s incomes then subtracted their joint
expenses to conclude Rodysill’s financial resources were sufficient to cover more than
ordinary and necessary needs.
Rodysill contends the ALJ was required to apportion Rodysill’s income and
expenses separate from Jennifer’s. See Filing No. 23 - Reply p. 2. Rodysill relies on a
guideline directing the ALJ to “[a]ttribute to each dependent member a pro-rata share of
the family’s ordinary and necessary living expenses. Attribute those expenses that are
not shared by all household members only to the person who incurred them.” POMS
GN 02250.130(B)(2) (emphasis added). The guideline provides an example showing
how a child’s income (social security benefits only) and pro-rata share of household
expenses are evaluated. Id. Rodysill misapplies the guidelines, which do not label
either the husband or the wife as a dependent. In any event, regulations applicable to
the Act provide guidance about determining when an individual is a dependent. See,
e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.360 to 404.366 (benefits for child dependent on insured person);
20 C.F.R. § 404.370(f) (dependent parent). The regulations are not dispositive of the
issues here but do provide a relevant and objective methodology.
Dependency is
based upon whether an individual is receiving regular contributions for support from
another person. 20 C.F.R. § 404.366. These contributions must be “large enough to
meet an important part of your ordinary living costs” or one-half of your support. Id.
Specifically, one-half support means:
The [other] person provides one-half of your support if he or
she makes regular contributions for your ordinary living
costs; the amount of these contributions equals or exceeds
one-half of your ordinary living costs; and any [other] income
. . . you have available for support purposes is one-half or
less of your ordinary living costs.
20 C.F.R. § 404.366(b).
7
Rodysill suggested the ALJ apportion his income and expenses separate from
his wife’s income and expenses. See Filing No. 23 - Reply p. 2; AR. 532-535, 547.
Rodysill states that considering his pro-rata share of “income and expenses at best
Rodysill would be left with $136.17.” See Filing No. 23 - Reply p. 2. He goes on to
argue this amount is far too low to require him to make $300.00 monthly payments. Id.
More importantly, however even under his calculations he has funds remaining at the
end of each month after his share of expenses are paid from his income. Accordingly,
he cannot show he is dependent on his wife for support because she does not make
regular contributions comprising one-half or even an important part of his ordinary living
costs.
Since Rodysill cannot show his dependency, the ALJ was not required to
“[a]ttribute to each dependent member a pro-rata share of the family’s ordinary and
necessary living expenses” pursuant to POMS GN 02250.130(B)(2). No error has been
shown based on the ALJ’s reliance on the household income and expenses.
Similarly, the ALJ did not err by considering Rodysill’s purchase of a home and
possible future increase in income. The ALJ’s comments indicate these considerations
supported her findings without giving them undue weight. The ALJ did not include
Rodysill’s future income in her financial calculations but considered the information for
the basis that monthly payments to the SSA would not impose a hardship because he
had stable employment as his income was then sufficient and was likely to increase
(AR. 22). The ALJ considered the home purchase with the increase in Rodysill’s other
expenses as an indication Rodysill intentionally increased his expenses with full
knowledge he may have to repay the overpayment (AR. 22). Additionally, despite the
increased debt and expenses “[Rodysill] and his wife still . . . have some income each
month that could be used for repayment” (AR. 22).
Based on Rodysill’s financial statements, a repayment plan to recover the benefit
overpayment would not require Rodysill to go into debt to meet his ordinary and
necessary living expenses. The ALJ did not err by considering (1) Rodysill would likely
receive increased income after the date of the hearing; (2) Rodysill’s wife’s income; and
(3) Rodysill purchased a home.
Based on the record before the court, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision recovery would not defeat the purpose of Title II.
8
B.
Equity and Good Conscience
As specifically provided in the applicable regulations, “[r]ecovery of an
overpayment is against equity and good conscience . . . if an individual-- (1) Changed
his or her position for the worse . . . or relinquished a valuable right . . . because of the
overpayment itself . . .” 20 C.F.R § 404.509(a). Furthermore, “[t]he individual’s financial
circumstances are not material to a finding of against equity and good conscience.” 20
C.F.R § 404.509(b).
The ALJ determined, “[r]ecovery of the overpayment would not be against equity
and good conscience because the claimant has not changed his position for the worse
or relinquished a valuable right. The claimant’s financial circumstances are not material
to this finding” (AR. 22). The ALJ made no other determinations specific to this inquiry.
Rodysill provides no evidence or argument he changed his position or
relinquished a valuable right in reliance on the overpayment. Rodysill argues the ALJ
erred by failing to consider his wife was not living in his household at the time of the
overpayment. See Filing No. 23 - Reply p. 3-5. For this reason, Rodysill contends his
wife should not be liable (and, more importantly, her income should not be considered)
for recovery.
Id.
Rodysill relies on 20 C.F.R § 404.509(a)(2), which provides,
“[r]ecovery of an overpayment is against equity and good conscience
. . . if an
individual-- . . . (2) Was living in a separate household from the overpaid person at the
time of the overpayment and did not receive the overpayment.” Additionally, Rodysill
relies on Groseclose v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 502 (8th Cir. 1987).
In Groseclose, the Commissioner sought recovery from the father for overpaid
child’s insurance benefits paid to his daughter based on his retirement benefits.
Groseclose, 809 F.2d at 503-04. The father lived in a different state from the daughter
and had no knowledge of the daughter’s receipt of benefits. Id. The court found, “it
difficult to imagine a more unfair or unjust situation than requiring a person who is
without fault to repay overpaid benefits when that person had no knowledge of the
overpayments.” Id. at 506.
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to Rodysill. Recovery is sought from Rodysill,
not his wife. Rodysill is the beneficiary of the overpayment and received the funds.
Rodysill’s wife was not the beneficiary, nor was she a person whose wages or income
9
were the basis of the payments to the overpaid person. The Commissioner does not
seek recovery from her. Nevertheless, Rodysill’s wife’s income is included in his current
household income for purposes of determining his ability to repay the overpayment as
explicitly required under the regulations, as discussed above. Such result is not against
equity and good conscience because she is not personally liable for the repayment.
Rodysill received the overpayment and was notified such benefits may be subject to
recovery prior to his marriage. Inequity does not result from one spouse providing
financial support for another spouse to maintain a household. This is particularly true
under the present circumstances where, as discussed above, Rodysill’s income covers
his pro-rata share of expenses. Accordingly, the ALJ permissibly found overpayment
recovery would not be against equity and good conscience in this case.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision denying waiver in this case.
IT IS ORDERED:
The Commissioner’s decision is affirmed, the appeal is denied, and judgment in
favor of the defendant will be entered in a separate document.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
10
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?