Chenoweth v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Affirming And Adopting 19 Report And Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, denying Pla's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Dft's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk is directed to enter judgment. This case is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 10/21/11. (mji)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
IRENE CHENOWETH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:11CV60
(STAMP)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.

Procedural History

After filing an application on April 29, 1994, the plaintiff,
Irene Chenoweth, was granted Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
benefits.

On

November

25,

2005,

the

plaintiff

completed

a

statement for determining continuing eligibility for SSI payments.
She

later

confirmed

resources

totaling

$3,000.00,

which

she

received from the sale of land that she and her siblings had
inherited from their mother.

On June 2, 2006, the defendant

informed the plaintiff that she had been overpaid by $16,152.00
from January 2004 to May 2006.

The defendant determined that

during this time period, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive
SSI benefits because her available resources, including the money
she received from the sale of land, exceeded the SSI limit.

The

plaintiff then filed a request for reconsideration and a waiver of
overpayment recovery, in which she asserted that she was not yet

entitled to any of the estate money and therefore did not own
resources in excess of the SSI limit.
The plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing, and a
hearing was held on December 16, 2008 before a United States
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).

On February 10, 2009, the ALJ

issued an opinion finding that the plaintiff was not eligible to
receive SSI benefits from April 2004 through May 2006 because of
excess resources available to her.

The Appeals Council denied the

plaintiff’s request for review, rendering the ALJ’s decision final.
The plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the ALJ’s decision
finding her ineligible to receive SSI benefits for the period of
April 2004 to May 2006.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David
J.

Joel

for

recommendation

submission
for

of

proposed

disposition

findings

pursuant

of

to

fact
28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B). Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed motions
for summary judgment.
issued

a

report

and

On October 5, 2011, the magistrate judge
recommendation

recommending

that

the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, that the
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and that the
decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.

Upon submitting his

report, Magistrate Judge Joel informed the parties that if they
objected to any portion of his proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, they must file written objections

2

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the
report.

Neither party filed objections.
II.

Applicable Law

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct
a

de

novo

review

of

any

portion

of

the

magistrate

recommendation to which objection is timely made.

judge’s

As to those

portions of a recommendation to which no objection is made, a
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous.”

See Webb v. Califano, 458 F.

Supp.

this

825

(E.D.

Cal.

1979).

In

case,

no

party

filed

objections to the report and recommendation, thus, the plaintiff
waived her right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based
thereon.

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140,

148-53

(1985).

Accordingly, this Court reviews the report and recommendation of
the magistrate judge for clear error.
III.

Discussion

In her motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff alleges that
the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred as a matter
of law in determining that she was not eligible to receive SSI
benefits from April 2004 through May 2006 because she had excess
resources at her disposal. According to the plaintiff, because she
did not have the legal right to use the funds from the sale of her
mother’s estate contained in the estate bank account for her

3

personal benefit, the ALJ should not have considered her share of
these proceeds as personal resources.
The defendant, in his motion for summary judgment, counters
that because neither the actual withdrawal of her share of the
funds nor the time of the estate’s closing are relevant factors for
purposes of establishing the plaintiff’s SSI eligibility during the
relevant time period, the ALJ properly deemed the plaintiff’s funds
from the sale of her mother’s estate to be a countable resource
rendering her ineligible for SSI. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205(a),(c).
In

his

report

and

recommendation,

the

magistrate

judge

discusses the standard for determining whether a financial account
is a countable resource, as well as the standard for determining
when an inheritance is a countable resource.
§§ 416.1201, 416.1208.

See 20 C.F.R.

Applying these standards to this case, the

magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ properly determined that
the estate bank account was the plaintiff’s countable resource.
An ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence.

See Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528

(4th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is that which a “‘reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”

Hays v.

Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).

Further, the “‘possibility

of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency’s findings from being supported by

4

substantial evidence.’”

Sec’y of Labor v. Mutual Mining, Inc., 80

F.3d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n,
383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)).
In this case, this Court agrees that because the estate
account was jointly held and the plaintiff was only SSI claimant or
recipient listed on the account title, the ALJ correctly applied
the presumption that all of the funds in the account belonged to
the plaintiff.

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1208(c)(1).

As an owner, the

plaintiff had the right to withdraw funds to use for her personal
support.

Moreover, the plaintiff had an ownership interest in the

bank account funds because of her status as her mother’s heir and
because she received a benefit from the sale of her mother’s
property. Thus, this Court agrees that the ALJ properly classified
the funds in the estate account as a countable resource.

This

Court also concurs that the plaintiff has not successfully rebutted
the ownership presumption relied upon by the ALJ, nor has she
proven that she did not have access to the account.
This Court has reviewed the record, as well as the parties’
motions for summary judgment, and for the reasons set forth in the
report and recommendation, concurs with the magistrate judge that
the Commissioner’s decision that the plaintiff is not eligible to
receive SSI benefits for the period from April 2004 to May 2006 is
supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation is affirmed and adopted.

5

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the
magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly erroneous and
hereby AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge.

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from
the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.
DATED:

October 21, 2011

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6