Gonzales v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
1:18-cv-00437
D. Colo.Jul 12, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Devin Ross Gonzales sought judicial review of a denial of Social Security disability benefits after an ALJ denied benefits on August 1, 2017 and the Appeals Council denied review by notice mailed November 22, 2017.
- The Appeals Council notice advised a 60-day deadline to commence a civil action; the parties for motion purposes accepted plaintiff received the notice on December 5, 2017, making the deadline February 5, 2018.
- Plaintiff filed this action on February 21, 2018 — after the 60-day period — and defendant moved to dismiss for failure to timely file.
- Plaintiff’s counsel had filed, within the deadline, a request to the Appeals Council for an extension until February 19; the Appeals Council ultimately denied that request on April 21.
- The court considered whether equitable tolling of the 60-day filing period applied, focusing on (1) diligence and (2) an extraordinary circumstance beyond plaintiff’s control.
- The court found plaintiff was not diligent (filed complaint after his requested extension date) and did not show an extraordinary impediment (counsel’s heavy caseload and holidays are not extraordinary), and thus dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was filed within the 60-day period to seek judicial review of the Appeals Council denial | Deadline should run from Dec 5, 2017; suit timely if extension applied | Suit was filed Feb 21, 2018, after the 60-day period (deadline Feb 5, 2018) | Suit untimely; not filed within 60-day statutory period |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to save the untimely filing | Counsel requested extension from Appeals Council within deadline; equitable tolling warranted | No extraordinary circumstance shown; counsel’s extension request does not excuse late federal filing | Equitable tolling denied |
| Whether counsel’s heavy workload/holidays constitute an "extraordinary" circumstance | Heavy caseload and holidays prevented timely filing | Ordinary professional burdens do not qualify as extraordinary | Counsel’s workload/holidays insufficient for tolling |
| Whether counsel pursued rights with diligence | Counsel acted by filing extension request with Appeals Council | Counsel did not monitor status and filed complaint after his requested extension date | Plaintiff not sufficiently diligent; missed self-imposed extension deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (government consent limits suit jurisdiction)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (United States cannot be sued without consent)
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (statutory filing limits as condition of waiver construed strictly)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (equitable tolling applies sparingly)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (two-prong test for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- United States v. Clymore, 245 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. equitable tolling precedent)
- Lookingbill v. Cockrell, 293 F.3d 256 (5th Cir.; busy counsel not grounds for equitable tolling)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (importance of enforcing filing deadlines)