Khoshmood v. Social Security Administration, Civil Action No. 2017-0882

Plaintiff, Mohsen Khoshmood, sought review in federal court of Social Security Administration (SSA) decisions regarding his Title XVI supplemental security income benefits.
SSA initially awarded benefits effective February 21, 2013; plaintiff received $710/month, later adjusted to $661.50 and a pro rata payment of $513.10 for part of November 2016.
Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking increased benefits (including a demand for $20 million) and alleged the current payments were insufficient to live on in the U.S.
Defendant (Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill) moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies.
The administrative record shows no request for reconsideration, no hearing request before an Administrative Law Judge, and no appeal to the Appeals Council by plaintiff.
The court recognized plaintiff’s financial difficulties but emphasized that SSA had found him entitled to some benefits and that administrative review is required before judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review SSA benefit amounts before final administrative decision	Khoshmood seeks federal review and increased benefits, arguing current payments are insufficient	Berryhill argues plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not obtain a final decision from the Secretary	Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff did not satisfy the presentment/exhaustion requirements

Beattie v. Astrue, 845 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2012) (describing the four-step administrative review process for SSA claims)
Ryan v. Bentsen, 12 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (explaining presentment and exhaustion components of the SSA "final decision" requirement)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (distinguishing waivable exhaustion from jurisdictional presentment requirements)