TWYNE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Filing 17

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 8/18/14. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Docket No.: 13-cv-618-WJM-MF

TIFFANIE L. TWYNE,
Plaintiff,

OPINION
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the court by way of Plaintiff’s motion to alter a final
order dismissing the case. The court will treat it as a motion for relief from an order
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-Claimant is 19 years-old and receiving Social Security benefits
because she meets the Social Security Administration’s definition for mental
retardation. The underlying appeal involved a gap in benefits that the Social Security
Administration (SSA) admits was made in error.
Plaintiff first applied for and received Social Security Benefits in 2003.
(Complaint at ¶ 4) In 2005, the SSA informed Plaintiff that SSI benefits were ceased
due to excess deemed income because of her mother’s salary. (Transcript 16) In
her “Statement of Income and Resources,” Plaintiff’s mother reported that she was
paid twice a month. However, instead of doubling the amount of her bi-monthly
paycheck, SSA treated her bi-monthly paycheck as a weekly paycheck. (Id. at 16)
The Social Security Administration sent Plaintiff a “Redetermination Summary” that
included a copy of the “Statement of Income Resources.” The “Statement of Income
1

Resources” contained the information Claimant’s mother had provided regarding her
income and resources. (Id. at 16) In addition, a notice dated November 29, 2005
itemized the mother’s income, explained how a parent’s income and resources affect
a child’s Title XVI payments, how parents’ income is counted and why the
beneficiary is no longer entitled to benefits. Plaintiff’s mother never questioned or
corrected the mistake.
In 2009, she again requested Social Security benefits. On April 30, 2010, SSA
granted the benefits effective January 29, 2009. The April 20, 2010 decision made
no findings regarding the time frame the beneficiary now seeks to have retroactive
benefits applied. (Transcript at 15)
On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff requested a hearing regarding the erroneous denial
of benefits from November 2005 through January 28, 2009. Plaintiff sought 1.) a
deemed filing date of January 2006 and 2.) a reopening of the case. (Transcript 14)
The ALJ denied the request because Plaintiff failed to object to the cessation of
benefits within the applicable regulatory two-year period. The ALJ also denied the
request to set a deemed filing date of January 2006.
The Plaintiff argued that the deemed filing date should be January 2006 under
20 C.F.R. § 416.351 – Deemed filing date in a case of misinformation. Plaintiff
argued that the mistaken cessation of benefits based upon a miscalculation of the
Plaintiff’s mother’s income amounted to “misinformation” under the regulation.
The ALJ found that 20 C.F.R. § 416.351 did not apply to the Plaintiff’s particular
situation.
Plaintiff properly filed an appeal for review of the ALJ’s decision under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3) and 405(g). On April 11, 2014, this court dismissed the
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the question of the
Commissioner’s refusal to re-open the case.
In this motion, Plaintiff requests review of the Plaintiff’s deemed filing date.
The court did not reach this issue in its April 11, 2014 opinion, but the parties agree
it was within this court’s jurisdiction to determine. The court agrees that 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1383(c)(3) and 405(g) did confer jurisdiction over this issue.
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the court may relieve a
party from a final order for any reason that justifies relief. Because the court’s
2

oversight of one of the issues on appeal could justify relief, the court will review
the issue of the deemed filing date.
In an appeal from the Commissioner of Social Security, the court conducts a
plenary review of the legal issues. See Schaudeck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999). The factual findings of the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) are reviewed “only to determine whether the administrative record
contains substantial evidence supporting the findings.” Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259,
262 (3d Cir. 2000).
III.

DISCUSSION

Although Plaintiff’s plight is sympathetic, the ALJ’s determination that this
was not a case of “misinformation” under the Commissioner’s regulation is legally
correct and supported by substantial evidence. Under 20 C.F.R. § 416.351,
misinformation exists only where the misinformation was provided to the claimant
in response to a specific request for information about the claimant’s eligibility for
benefits. Id. at § 416.351(c)(4). In this case, there is no dispute that the claimant
made no request. The incorrect information came to the claimant unsolicited.
Moreover, the Commissioner’s erroneous determination came with a clear
explanation of why the Claimant’s benefits were to be ceased, and it also encouraged
the Claimant to review the determination and contact the SSA within 10 days if there
were any discrepancies. (Transcript 16) The Claimant failed to take any action until
January 2009.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

/s/ William J. Martini
_____________________________
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: August 18, 2014

3