Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedApril 8, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00254

StatusUnknown

This text of Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security (Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BRYAN STEPHEN FLOOD, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00254-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. RESTORATION OF BENEFITS (DKT. NO. 10) AND ORDER TO 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SHOW CAUSE SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff Bryan Flood is self-represented and has made a motion for restoration of his 18 Social Security benefits. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff’s short motion states that the dispute concerns 19 Injury Related Work Expenses, that Social Security began withholding benefits after he filed his 20 case—which he suggests is evidence of impropriety, and that he should be paid while this case is 21 pending because he cannot afford rent and basic living expenses without Social Security benefits. 22 (See id.) 23 24 1 The Government provides additional detail. Plaintiff was sent a letter by Social Security 2 on February 18, 2025 stating that his benefits were being withheld because he has been doing 3 substantial gainful work, and that the agency will not pay benefits from January to September 4 2023, January to June 2024, and January 2025 through the present. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 1.)

5 Because the agency only stopped checks in February 2025, it claims that it overpaid Plaintiff 6 $43,256.00. (Id.) 7 II. ANALYSIS 8 At this time, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. This Court cannot review a Social Security 9 determination until the agency’s decision is final, absent a constitutional claim, which is not 10 present here. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h); Subia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 11 2001). The agency’s decision with respect to Plaintiff’s benefits is not final, since Plaintiff can 12 appeal it within the agency. As the letter explains, Plaintiff has 60 days from the date he received 13 the letter to request reconsideration of the decision. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 3.) Plaintiff also has the 14 right to request that the agency waive his obligation to repay the overpayment, if the

15 overpayment was not his fault or if he could not pay for living expenses if he had to repay the 16 overpayment. (Id.) The letter states that he may use forms SSA-561-U2 to request 17 reconsideration or form SSA-632-BK to request waiver.1 (Id.) As the Government’s brief 18 explains, if Plaintiff’s reconsideration is not successful, he may ask an Administrative Law Judge 19 (ALJ) to review his case, he may then ask the Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s decision, and 20 only after those steps can he sue in this court. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a). 21 III. ORDER 22

1 These forms are publicly available online: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-561.html (Form 23 SSA-561), https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-632.html (Form SSA-632). The letter also provides information about assistance by phone. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 5.) 24 1 2 Therefore, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff should file for reconsideration and/or waiver 3 with Social Security before the deadline. 4 Additionally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause no later than April 18, 2025

5 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim due to failure to exhaust 6 administrative remedies, as discussed above. 7 The Clerk is directed to calendar this event. 8 9 Dated this 8th day of April, 2025. 10 a 11 David G. Estudillo 12 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BRYAN STEPHEN FLOOD, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00254-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. RESTORATION OF BENEFITS (DKT. NO. 10) AND ORDER TO 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SHOW CAUSE SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff Bryan Flood is self-represented and has made a motion for restoration of his 18 Social Security benefits. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff’s short motion states that the dispute concerns 19 Injury Related Work Expenses, that Social Security began withholding benefits after he filed his 20 case—which he suggests is evidence of impropriety, and that he should be paid while this case is 21 pending because he cannot afford rent and basic living expenses without Social Security benefits. 22 (See id.) 23 24 1 The Government provides additional detail. Plaintiff was sent a letter by Social Security 2 on February 18, 2025 stating that his benefits were being withheld because he has been doing 3 substantial gainful work, and that the agency will not pay benefits from January to September 4 2023, January to June 2024, and January 2025 through the present. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 1.)

5 Because the agency only stopped checks in February 2025, it claims that it overpaid Plaintiff 6 $43,256.00. (Id.) 7 II. ANALYSIS 8 At this time, Plaintiff’s motion is premature. This Court cannot review a Social Security 9 determination until the agency’s decision is final, absent a constitutional claim, which is not 10 present here. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h); Subia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 11 2001). The agency’s decision with respect to Plaintiff’s benefits is not final, since Plaintiff can 12 appeal it within the agency. As the letter explains, Plaintiff has 60 days from the date he received 13 the letter to request reconsideration of the decision. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 3.) Plaintiff also has the 14 right to request that the agency waive his obligation to repay the overpayment, if the

15 overpayment was not his fault or if he could not pay for living expenses if he had to repay the 16 overpayment. (Id.) The letter states that he may use forms SSA-561-U2 to request 17 reconsideration or form SSA-632-BK to request waiver.1 (Id.) As the Government’s brief 18 explains, if Plaintiff’s reconsideration is not successful, he may ask an Administrative Law Judge 19 (ALJ) to review his case, he may then ask the Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s decision, and 20 only after those steps can he sue in this court. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a). 21 III. ORDER 22

1 These forms are publicly available online: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-561.html (Form 23 SSA-561), https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-632.html (Form SSA-632). The letter also provides information about assistance by phone. (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 5.) 24 1 2 Therefore, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff should file for reconsideration and/or waiver 3 with Social Security before the deadline. 4 Additionally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause no later than April 18, 2025

5 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim due to failure to exhaust 6 administrative remedies, as discussed above. 7 The Clerk is directed to calendar this event. 8 9 Dated this 8th day of April, 2025. 10 a 11 David G. Estudillo 12 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Flood v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flood-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2025.