Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:14-cv-07731
S.D.N.Y.Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wendell Hall, proceeding pro se, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Appeals Council’s denial of his application for SSI benefits.
- The Appeals Council mailed its decision on July 15, 2014, notifying Hall he had 60 days to file a civil action.
- The Complaint was filed on September 24, 2014, more than 60 days after the mailing date; the court applied the five-day receipt presumption and treated the decision as received on or about July 20, 2014.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or for summary judgment under Rule 56 on timeliness grounds; the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
- Magistrate Judge Dolinger issued an R&R recommending grant of summary judgment for Defendant; neither party filed objections, and the district court reviewed for clear error.
- The court found Hall presented no evidence to rebut the five-day presumption or to justify equitable tolling, adopted the R&R, and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, closing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall filed within the 60-day period required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) | Complaint filed Sept. 24, 2014; implied contention that review should be allowed (no timely rebuttal) | Appeals Council decision mailed July 15, 2014; presumed received within 5 days -> deadline Sept. 18, 2014; complaint untimely | Complaint untimely; summary judgment for Commissioner granted |
| Whether five-day receipt presumption was rebutted | Hall offered no evidence disputing receipt date | Presumption applies absent affirmative evidence showing later receipt | Presumption stands; Hall failed to rebut |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Hall did not assert extraordinary circumstances or due diligence | No basis for equitable tolling; doctrine is rare and requires extraordinary circumstances and diligence | Equitable tolling not available; no excuse for late filing |
| Whether failure to object to R&R waived review | Hall did not object to R&R | Failure to object waived judicial review unless clear error | No clear error on record; R&R adopted in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (policy favoring prompt resolution of benefits claims)
- Torres v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and due diligence)
- Matsibekker v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1984) (examples of rebutting receipt presumption with mailing evidence)
- DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2000) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge R&R generally waives review)
- Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Authority, 333 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2003) (standards for equitable tolling analysis)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment burden and standard)