Seaborn v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-09397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Seaborn v. Commissioner, Judge Roman granted summary judgment to the Commissioner because Seaborn had not exhausted the required administrative process.
Ron Seaborn’s challenge to the withholding of his Supplemental Security Income benefits was ended, and judgment was entered for the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
In Seaborn v. Commissioner of Social Security, Ron Seaborn challenged the withholding of his Supplemental Security Income to recover alleged overpayments totaling $7,794. The agency said it was withholding monthly amounts from his benefits.
The agency gave Seaborn instructions and deadlines for challenging the overpayment determinations and requesting a waiver. The court found no evidence that he sought reconsideration or a waiver, and he did not oppose the agency’s motion.
Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation after finding no clear error. The court granted the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion and entered judgment for the Commissioner, terminating the action.
The detailed version
- Seaborn v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:23-cv-09397
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 27, 2024
Background
Ron Seaborn, representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the Social Security Administration’s determination that his Supplemental Security Income benefits were subject to overpayment withholding. The opinion states that the agency sent Seaborn notices identifying overpayments of $794, $5,412, and $1,588. The notices explained that he had 60 days to appeal, instructed him to complete a request-for-reconsideration form, and described how to request a waiver. The agency later stated that it was withholding $94.30 per month from his SSI benefits.
The agency’s records contained no evidence that Seaborn requested reconsideration of the overpayment determinations or sought a waiver. Seaborn did not oppose the Commissioner’s motion.
Proceedings and Analysis
The Commissioner initially moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, or alternatively sought summary judgment, which resolves a case when the record shows no legally relevant factual dispute. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause, who construed the motion as one for summary judgment and recommended granting it.
Because neither side timely objected to the recommendation, Judge Roman reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found no clear error and agreed that Seaborn had failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. The court also stated that the record did not show that, even if Seaborn was not at fault for the overpayment, repayment would be inequitable or would defeat the purposes of the Social Security Act.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment without opposition or objection, entered judgment in the Commissioner’s favor, terminated the motion, and terminated the action. This ruling was based on the failure to complete the administrative review process rather than a decision that the underlying overpayment determination was correct.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.