Richard Robson v. Nancy Berryhill
707 F. App'x 441
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard H. Robson, pro se, was awarded Social Security retirement benefits under the U.S.-Canada totalization agreement but disputed the amount calculated by the Commissioner.
- He sought reconsideration from the SSA and, after administrative proceedings, challenged the benefit calculation in district court; the Commissioner’s decision was affirmed and Robson appealed.
- Robson argued the district court lacked authority to dismiss his verified complaint because the Commissioner’s answer was not verified and that he was entitled to discovery.
- He raised four substantive claims: (1) the Commissioner’s use of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1918 violated the totalization agreement; (2) his vested property rights under the Pension Protection Act were violated; (3) the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) was improperly applied; and (4) he received insufficient notice of the benefit calculation.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a colorable claim; the Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verified answer was required and discovery allowed | Robson: Commissioner’s unverified answer barred dismissal; he needed discovery | Commissioner: Rule 11 doesn’t require verification; social security cases generally not for discovery | Verification not required; no entitlement to discovery; dismissal proper |
| Whether § 404.1918 violated the totalization agreement (or deprived due process) | Robson: Reg. conflicts with totalization agreement; deprived him of due process | Commissioner: § 404.1918 implements the pro rata calculation authorized by statute and agreement | No jurisdiction to consider beyond record; any constitutional claim not colorable; regulation upheld |
| Whether Pension Protection Act vested Robson’s benefits | Robson: Benefits are vested property under Pension Protection Act, so due process violation | Commissioner: PPA/ERISA governs private employer pensions, not Social Security; Social Security benefits do not vest | PPA/ERISA inapplicable; Social Security benefits not vested; no due process violation |
| Whether WEP was applied or § 404.1918 is improper alternative to WEP | Robson: SSA used an unratified alternative to WEP; unfair and unlawful | Commissioner: SSA applied § 404.1918, not WEP; statute authorizes implementing regulations for totalization | SSA used § 404.1918 lawfully; regulation not arbitrary or contrary to statute/agreement |
| Whether notice was inadequate denying due process | Robson: Local office gave misleading benefit estimates; insufficient notice of final amount | Commissioner: Robson received notice of decision and full opportunities for reconsideration and hearing | Notice and opportunity to be heard were provided; due process claim not colorable |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 492 (9th Cir.) (discovery not ordinarily available in Social Security matters)
- Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.) (colorable constitutional claim standard in Social Security review)
- Newman v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.) (standard for upholding Social Security regulations against challenge)
- Spraic v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 735 F.2d 1208 (9th Cir.) (Social Security benefits are not contractual or vested)
- Das v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir.) (upholding constitutionality of the Windfall Elimination Provision)
- Udd v. Massanari, 245 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (due process requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard)
- In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 650 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir.) (disagreement with rulings does not itself establish judicial misconduct)