Farina Ex Rel. Farina v. Commissioner of Social Security
670 F. App'x 756
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2009 Nalani Farina (then 18) applied for Supplemental Security Income and disabled child’s insurance benefits, alleging mental impairments beginning before age 22.
- The Social Security Administration denied benefits initially and on reconsideration; an ALJ and the Appeals Council affirmed the denials.
- Nalani’s father, Robert Farina (not an attorney), filed suit in district court on her behalf, proceeding in forma pauperis and asserting no personal claim.
- The district court reached the merits and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit addressed whether a non‑attorney parent may represent an adult child in federal court and whether the district court properly reached the merits given the lack of authorized representation.
- The Court concluded the father could not represent his adult daughter, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings without deciding the disability merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑attorney parent may represent an adult child in federal court | Robert argued he could proceed on behalf of his daughter (stating he was her SSA representative) | Commissioner argued parties must appear pro se or by counsel and a non‑lawyer may not represent another in federal court | A non‑attorney parent may not represent his adult child; 28 U.S.C. §1654 bars such representation |
| Whether district court could reach merits when the adult claimant lacked counsel or did not appear | Robert urged review on the merits arguing the underlying ALJ record lacked substantial evidence | Commissioner relied on the district court’s merits review and the administrative record | Court held district court erred to reach merits without proper representation; case remanded for proceedings ensuring Nalani is represented or proceeds pro se |
| Whether sealing of documents was warranted after public filing of personal identifiers | Robert filed briefs containing Nalani’s SSN and sought sealing | Commissioner opposed public filing given privacy concerns | Court ordered certain filings sealed for 50 years, concluding risk of harm outweighed public interest |
| Whether exceptions permitting non‑attorney representation in other circuits apply | Robert and filings cited precedents allowing non‑attorney parents to pursue appeals in limited SSA contexts | Commissioner distinguished those cases and emphasized Nalani was an adult throughout litigation | Court declined to adopt or rule on those exceptions, noting those cases are distinguishable and left the question open |
Key Cases Cited
- Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (non‑attorney cannot represent another party in federal court)
- Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1989) (court lacked authority to reach merits when an unrepresented, unprotected incompetent plaintiff had claims dismissed)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) (factors for sealing judicial records and balancing privacy vs. public interest)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (standards and guidance for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002) (example of circuit allowing non‑attorney parent to pursue SSA appeal in limited circumstances)
- Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2000) (another example of circuit permitting non‑attorney parent to prosecute a child’s SSA appeal)