Herrera Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:23-cv-03183
| E.D.N.Y | Mar 13, 2024Background
- Orlando Herrera Gomez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sought judicial review of a Social Security Administration (SSA) denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility.
- The SSA's letter to Gomez indicated he was found ineligible because he stated he did not want to file an application for SSI—a required step for eligibility.
- Gomez's complaint alleged denial of benefits but did not attach an Appeals Council decision; instead, he attached the informal SSA letter regarding his oral inquiry.
- The Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing no final decision was issued by the SSA.
- The court reviewed whether it had jurisdiction given the lack of a filed SSI application or exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has subject matter jurisdiction to review | Alleged denial of SSI without application | No application filed; thus, no jurisdiction | No jurisdiction—no application or final decision |
| Requirement to file SSI application | Implied eligibility based on oral inquiry | Application must be in writing; oral inquiry insufficient | Oral inquiry is not an application; claim dismissed |
| Requirement to exhaust SSA administrative remedies | Does not allege exhaustion | Remedies not exhausted; procedure not followed | No exhaustion alleged—jurisdiction lacking |
| Waiver of exhaustion requirement | No facts pled for waiver | No grounds for waiver present | No waiver—complaint alleges no grounds; not waived |
Key Cases Cited
- City of New York v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1984) (Establishes requirements for judicial review of SSA decisions, including filing a claim and exhausting remedies.)
- Brunetti v. Massanari, 24 F. App’x 19 (2d Cir. 2001) (Affirms that an individual must file a written application for SSI; oral inquiries do not suffice.)
- Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251 (9th Cir. 1996) (Clarifies oral inquiry does not constitute a formal application for benefits.)