Skrodzki v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
693 F. App'x 29
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andrzej Skrodzki (pro se) received Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) that the SSA later determined were an overpayment and recovered by withholding subsequent benefit payments for several months (June–November 2009).
- Skrodzki sought waiver of repayment, arguing withheld funds were used for ordinary and necessary living expenses; he submitted credit-card statements showing cash advances and charges (transportation, computer parts, airline tickets, medical treatment in Poland).
- The ALJ denied waiver, concluding it was unclear whether cash advances paid for food and that many charges were not "necessary."
- The district court vacated the Commissioner’s decision and remanded, finding the ALJ failed to consider all categories of 20 C.F.R. § 404.508(a) and Skrodzki’s individual standard of living.
- The Commissioner appealed the district court’s remand; Skrodzki primarily asked instead for repayment of withheld benefits with interest.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand, holding further factfinding was needed to determine whether recovery would deprive Skrodzki of income required for ordinary and necessary expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have ordered outright repayment with interest rather than remand | Skrodzki argued the court should order repayment of withheld benefits with interest | Commissioner argued remand was appropriate because the record required further factfinding | Court affirmed remand; record not clear enough to compel repayment calculation |
| Whether the ALJ applied the correct standard for waiver under 20 C.F.R. § 404.508(a) | Skrodzki argued the ALJ failed to consider all categories of "ordinary and necessary" expenses and his standard of living | Commissioner relied on ALJ's finding that many expenses were not necessary and that use of some funds was unclear | Court held ALJ did not adequately account for all § 404.508 categories; remand for further findings was proper |
| Whether reversal for calculation of benefits was warranted | Skrodzki’s position implicitly sought a remedies-only reversal | Commissioner contended additional factfinding could affect entitlement/waiver determination | Court held reversal was not warranted because additional findings could materially affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard: fourth‑sentence § 405(g) remands reviewed for abuse of discretion; remand proper when further findings will plainly help disposition)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (remand appropriate when further findings will aid proper disposition)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (reversal for benefits only appropriate when correct legal standard yields only one possible conclusion)