Stapleton v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 25, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05845
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 BRENDA IRENE STAPLETON, Case No. C22-5845 TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 9 SECURITY, 10 Defendant. 11 Plaintiff Ms. Stapleton filed a complaint against the Acting Commissioner of 12 Social Security alleging that she was wrongfully denied disability benefits. Dkt. 1. The 13 Commissioner moved to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Stapleton’s complaint was filed 14 outside the 60-day appeals window. Dkt. 12. Ms. Stapleton opposed the motion to 15 dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff has been diligently pursuing her right and extraordinary 16 circumstances exist in this case, and thus, equitable tolling should apply. Dkt. 13. The 17 motion to dismiss is DENIED. 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the Commissioner erred in denying her 20 application for disability benefits. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff asserts she is disabled and argues she 21 is eligible for financial assistance from the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff is 22 proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning that this Court has found that she lacked 23 sufficient funds to enable her to pay the filing fee to initiate this case. Dkt. 6. 24 1 Ms. Stapleton’s claim for disability benefits was denied by an Administrative Law 2 Judge on May 19, 2021. Dkt. 12-2. She requested a review of that decision, and the 3 Appeals Council denied request for review of the unfavorable decision by notice dated 4 March 24, 2022. Dkt. 12-2, at 30. On May 19, 2022, the office of Plaintiff’s new counsel,

5 Randi Johnson, filed a request for extension of time to file a civil action. Dkt. 1-1, at 2-3. 6 Plaintiff’s counsel re-filed this extension request on May 23, 2022, after the Appeals 7 Council claimed that they did not receive the request. See Dkt. 13-1 at ¶3-4 (Declaration 8 of Kelly Horness, Paralegal of Gravis Law LLC). On June 6, 2023, Ms. Horness called 9 the Appeals Council to confirm receipt of the request; she was advised that they were 10 still processing the request. Id. at ¶5. On August 23, 2022, the Appeals Council granted 11 Plaintiff the 30 additional days from receipt of the letter to file a civil action. See 12-2 at 12 ¶3(b) (Declaration of Christianne Voegele). The letter was sent to Plaintiff’s original 13 attorney of record rather than Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s office, to date, has not 14 received this letter. See Dkt. 13-1 at ¶6. Plaintiff’s action was commenced on November

15 1, 2022. Dkt. 1. 16 II. Legal Standard 17 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states that a civil action appealing a final decision of the 18 Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing must be commenced within 60 19 days after the plaintiff's receipt of notice of the decision. The 60-day period begins to run 20 on the day after the plaintiff receives notice of the Appeals Council's action. 20 C.F.R. 21 §§ 404.968, 416.1468. The notice is presumed to have been received “5 days after the 22 date on the notice.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.901, 416.1401. 23

24 1 The 60-day period is not jurisdictional, but constitutes a statute of limitations. 2 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328, n. 9 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S.749, 3 754 (1975). As such, it is subject to equitable tolling. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 4 U.S. 467, 478–79 (1986). The 60-day statute of limitations in § 405(g) is “contained in a

5 statute that Congress designed to be ‘unusually protective’ of claimants.” Id. at 480. 6 Congress's authorization of the Secretary to toll the 60-day limits expresses “its clear 7 intention to allow tolling in some cases.” Id. In addition to the Secretary's authority, the 8 Court may apply traditional equitable tolling principles to the 60-day period. Id.; Honda 9 v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484, 501 (1967). 10 III. Discussion 11 Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling must show that (1) she has pursued 12 her rights diligently, and (2) some extraordinary circumstances stood in her way. Credit 13 Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221, 227 (2012). Here, the Plaintiff has 14 not only pursued her rights by filing the complaint in this case, but has shown diligence

15 in appealing her social security disability benefit denial through several stages. This 16 included an initial denial, a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, a 17 request for an Appeals Council review of the ALJ's decision, and the complaint in this 18 case requesting review of the Appeals Council's decision. Dkt. 7. 19 Although this delay was caused by Plaintiff’s counsel not filing an appointment of 20 representative with the agency, the Court finds that the combination of (1) Plaintiff’s 21 counsel sending a timely extension request to the Appeals Council (2) Plaintiff’s counsel 22 23

24 1 diligently following up with the Appeal’s Council regarding the extension request1, and 2 (3) the significant risk of prejudice to the Plaintiff if her case is not heard on the merits, 3 together make this “the rare case” where tolling should apply. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480. 4 IV. Conclusion

5 Equitable tolling applies, the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss is denied. The 6 parties are hereby ORDERED to proceed with this case – the Commissioner’s answer 7 is due 60 days from the date of this order. 8 9 Dated this 25th day of May, 2023. A 10

Theresa L. Fricke 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 The Court further notes that while the Appeals Council may be bound by HALLEX I-1-1-10(B), HALLEX does not impose judicially enforceable duties on the court. See Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th 23 Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). Thus, for the purposes of the instant motion, the Court does not find it necessary to interpret whether pursuant to HALLEX I-1-1-10(B), the Appeals Council can only send 24 correspondence to attorneys who have filed an Appointment of Representative with the agency.