Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 21, 2023
• Docket: 5:21-cv-07822
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 T.W., Case No. 21-cv-07822-SVK

6 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 7 v. TO SUPPLEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 8 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Re: Dkt. No. 28 9 Defendant. 10 11 I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12 On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action, which challenges a 13 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. 14 Dkt. 1. The case was reassigned to the undersigned after all Parties consented to proceed before a 15 magistrate judge. Dkt. 11, 13, 14, 15. 16 Defendant filed an Answer and the Administrative Record on April 11, 2022. Dkt. 20, 21. 17 On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Petition for Order Directing 18 Commission of Social Security to Electronically Lodge Complete Administrative Record” and 19 Plaintiff’s supporting declaration. Dkt. 28-29. In a subsequent order, the Court informed the 20 Parties that it would treat Plaintiff’s filing at Dkt. 28-29 as a Motion to Supplement the 21 Administrative Record (the “Motion”) and ordered briefing on the Motion. Dkt. 30. 22 After reviewing the Parties’ briefing on the Motion, the Court ordered additional briefing 23 on the question of whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 32. The Court deferred 24 a ruling on the Motion until it determines whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Id. The 25 Parties submitted briefs on subject matter jurisdiction, as ordered. Dkt. 33, 34. 26 For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction 27 in this action and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. The II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 1 As discussed above, after reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative 2 Record, the Court raised the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, 3 even though neither Party raised the issue. See Dkt. 32. In their briefs on subject matter 4 jurisdiction, both sides took the position that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See 5 Dkt. 33. 34. The Court nevertheless has an independent duty to ensure that it has subject matter 6 jurisdiction. See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). 7 As the Party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 8 that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 9 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In support of their arguments that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, 10 both Parties cite 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Dkt. 33 at 2; Dkt. 34 at 22; see also Dkt. 1 (statement in 11 Complaint that Plaintiff seeks review of a “final decision of the Commissioner [of Social 12 Security]” regarding his claim for disability benefits and alleges that the Court has jurisdiction 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). That section provides, in relevant part: 14

15 (g) Judicial review

16 Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 17 made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced 18 within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow. Such action shall 19 be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside 20 or have his principal place of business within any such judicial district, in the 21 United States District Court for the District of Columbia . . .

22 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 23 The Court noted the following in its order requiring supplemental briefing on subject 24 matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 32): 25 • Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 26 on March 17, 2017. See Dkt. 21 (“Administrative Record” or “AR”) at 67. 27 • At the February 7, 2018 ALJ hearing, Plaintiff, through his representative, asked to 1 • On that basis, the ALJ dismissed Plaintiff’s request for a hearing in an order dated 2 February 14, 2018. AR 67. 3 • Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s dismissal to the Appeals Council, which denied his 4 request for review. AR 1. 5 The Court’s order for briefing on subject matter jurisdiction stated that “[i]t thus appears from the 6 record that due to his waiver, Plaintiff did not receive an ALJ hearing on the merits of his claim 7 for disability benefits.” Dkt. 32. 8 The Parties’ supplemental briefing further explains the relevant procedural history. The 9 Commissioner explains that the ALJ convened a hearing in February 2018 at which Plaintiff 10 began to testify. Dkt. 33 at 2. According to the Commissioner, Plaintiff testified that he was 11 working for Knowledge Learning Corporation at the time; the ALJ explained to Plaintiff that his 12 employment would make him ineligible for disability benefits; Plaintiff had a discussion with his 13 attorney off the record; Plaintiff’s attorney then stated on the record that Plaintiff would be 14 withdrawing his disability claim; the ALJ explained the consequences of withdrawing the claim 15 and Plaintiff said he understood; and the ALJ then accepted Plaintiff’s request to withdraw his 16 claim. Id. (citing AR 72-80). Plaintiff agrees that the ALJ convened a hearing and that he was 17 sworn in and began to testify, although he argues that the ALJ erred in dismissing his claim. 18 Dkt. 34 at 16-31. After the hearing, the ALJ issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s request for a 19 hearing. Dkt. 33 at 2 (citing AR 67). Plaintiff filed a request for review, which the Appeals 20 Council denied. Dkt. 33 at 2 (citing AR 1-2, 61). Plaintiff now seeks judicial review. Dkt. 1. 21 After reviewing the Parties’ briefing on subject matter jurisdiction, the record in this case, 22 and relevant legal authorities, the Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme 23 Court has held that section 405(g)’s “condition” on judicial review “consists of two elements”: a 24 non-waivable, “jurisdictional” “requirement that a claim for benefits shall have been presented to 25 the [Commissioner],” and a “waivable … requirement that the administrative remedies prescribed 26 by the [Commissioner] be exhausted.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976). 27 The Commissioner takes the position that Plaintiff satisfied the nonwaivable 1 applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income, and he also presented to 2 the agency the question on which he now seeks judicial review: whether the dismissal of his 3 request for hearing was appropriate. Dkt. 33 at 3. 4 A recent Supreme Court case explains the second, “waivable” element requiring 5 exhaustion of administrative remedies in section 405(g) as follows:

6 Modern-day claimants must generally proceed through a four-step process before 7 they can obtain review from a federal court. First, the claimant must seek an initial determination as to his eligibility. Second, the claimant must seek reconsideration 8 of the initial determination. Third, the claimant must request a hearing, which is conducted by an ALJ. Fourth, the claimant must seek review of the ALJ's decision 9 by the Appeals Council. See 20 CFR § 416.1400. If a claimant has proceeded through all four steps on the merits, all agree, § 405(g) entitles him to judicial 10 review in federal district court. 11 Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772 (2019). In Smith, the claimant received an “ALJ hearing 12 on the merits” but his request for Appeals Council review of the ALJ decision was untimely. 13 Smith, 139 S. Ct. at 1775. However, Smith stated that “an ALJ hearing is not an ironclad 14 prerequisite for judicial review.” Id at 1774. 15 On this second, “waivable” element, the Commissioner states that in the present case 16 “Plaintiff did not waive his right to an ALJ hearing” because he “appeared at a hearing before the 17 ALJ and asked to withdraw his request for a hearing.” Id. However, the Commissioner also states 18 that it “agrees with the Court’s understanding that Plaintiff did not receive an ALJ hearing on the 19 merits.” Id. (citing Dkt 32 at 2) (emphasis in original). The fact that Plaintiff did not receive an 20 ALJ hearing on the merits distinguishes this case from Smith. However, in a decision since Smith 21 the Eleventh Circuit found that the second “waivable” element could be satisfied even though the 22 plaintiff in that case did not receive an ALJ hearing on the merits because he failed to appear for 23 the scheduled hearing. Wilson v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., No. 21-10278, 2021 WL 3878252 24 (11th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). In finding “grounds to believe” that the plaintiff “satisfied the 25 waivable requirement of exhaustion of the administrative remedies prescribed by the 26 Commissioner,” that court noted that the plaintiff had “received a claim-ending determination 27 from the agency’s last in-line decisionmaker, the Appeals Council”; Smith states that an ALJ 1 case would make the agency the unreviewable arbiter of whether a claimant established good 2 cause for failing to appear at an ALJ hearing, which tends to clash with Congressional intent and 3 the presumption of judicial review.” Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 Although the Court has not located and the Parties have not cited a case on all fours with 5 the facts of this case, the Court finds it unnecessary to decide whether in all circumstances the 6 situation presented here—in which the claimant decided during an ALJ hearing to withdraw his 7 request for a hearing, the ALJ dismissed the request for hearing on that basis, and the Appeals 8 Council denied review—satisfies the second, waivable requirement for exhaustion of 9 administrative remedies because in this case the Commissioner has expressly and unambiguously 10 stated that “the agency waived reliance on that exhaustion requirement by answering this case, and 11 it continues to waive reliance on that requirement.” Dkt. 33 at 3; see also Wilson, 2021 WL 12 3878252, at *3 (stating that court need not decide whether there has been a “final decision … 13 made after a hearing” because Commissioner expressly waived any objection on exhaustion 14 grounds).1 15 Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. 16 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 17 Turning now to Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record, Plaintiff 18 argues that the administrative record filed by the Commissioner improperly omits Plaintiff’s 19 medical treatment records. See Dkt. 28 at ¶ 8. The Commissioner responds by arguing that 20 because the Court is reviewing the ALJ’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for a hearing 21 22 based on Plaintiff’s request to do so, it is not necessary for the AR to include Plaintiff’s medical 23 records. Dkt. 31 at 2. According to the Commissioner, “the ALJ’s order was based on a purely 24 procedural basis” and “the ALJ did not rely on any medical records or make any decisions as to 25 26 1 The Commissioner states that she “is still in the process of determining” whether the Supreme 27 Court’s decision in Smith v. Berryhill “affects her position on judicial review of ALJ dismissals” the substantive merit(s) of Plaintiff’s claim for disability.” Id. 1 2 In this case, the Court is reviewing the Commissioner’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s 3 request for a hearing, which was decided on procedural grounds. In Smith, the Supreme Court 4 explained that “in an ordinary case, a court should restrict its review to the procedural ground that 5 was the basis for the Appeals Council dismissal and (if necessary) allow the agency to address any 6 residual substantive questions in the first instance.” Smith, 139 S. Ct. at 1780. Although the 7 Parties have not yet submitted briefs on the merits, in the “ordinary course” if the Court decides 8 that the ALJ’s dismissal order was erroneous, the Court would remand the case to the 9 10 Commissioner to consider the merits of Plaintiff’s disability claim in the first instance. See id. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record is DENIED. If in 12 reviewing the Parties’ upcoming merits briefs the Court finds that the existing administrative 13 record is inadequate, it will order supplementation of the record at that time. 14 15 IV. CONCLUSION AND CASE SCHEDULE 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes it has subject matter jurisdiction over this 17 action and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. 18 The original procedural order in this case, issued on October 5, 2021, set forth a schedule 19 for the Parties to submit cross-motions for summary judgment, as was the standard practice at that 20 time. Dkt. 4. On December 1, 2022, Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 21 22 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) took effect, which establish a “simplified procedure that recognizes the 23 essentially appellate character of actions that seek only review of an individual’s claims on a 24 single administrative record” and “displace[] summary judgment … as the means of review on the 25 administrative record.” See Supplemental Rules and 2022 Advisory Committee Note at 26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/supplemental-rules-for-social-security-actions-under-42- 27 1 Supplemental Rules “shall govern in all proceedings thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and 2 || practicable, all proceedings then pending. 3 || https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frev22_b8dg.pdf. 4 Finding it just and practicable, and to facilitate the efficient disposition of this case by the 5 Court, the Court ORDERS the Parties to prepare and file briefs as contemplated by Rules 6, 7, and 8 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on the following schedule:

9 Plaintiff's brief due: March 23, 2023 10 Commissioner’s brief due: April 24, 2023 11 Plaintiffs reply brief due: May 8, 2023 12 SO ORDERED. = 13 Dated: February 21, 2023 go Seam vett— 16 SUSAN VAN KEULEN 3 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28