Melissa E. V. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Melissa E. V., proceeding without a lawyer, sued to obtain judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s final action concerning a claim for supplemental security income. The opinion identifies Melissa E. V. as the claimant’s mother. The administrative law judge denied the claim after finding that the claimant had not been disabled since January 9, 2017. The Appeals Council denied Melissa E. V.’s request for review on October 14, 2022.

The Appeals Council notice was mailed to an address in the Bronx. The notice stated that any civil action had to be filed within 60 days after receipt. Receipt is presumed to occur five days after the notice date unless the claimant makes a reasonable showing otherwise. Melissa E. V. later told the Appeals Council that she had moved to a shelter in Brooklyn before the notice was sent and had not received the documents. She filed this lawsuit on July 18, 2024.

The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief. The Commissioner argued that the lawsuit was untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner also alternatively sought summary judgment, but the court did not reach that request. Melissa E. V. did not oppose the motion and later filed a motion to reopen the case, although the case had not been closed.

Analysis

The court calculated the presumed receipt date as October 19, 2022. The 60-day period therefore began on October 20, 2022, and ended on December 19, 2022. Because the complaint was filed on July 18, 2024, it was untimely unless Melissa E. V. could rebut the presumed receipt date.

The court held that saying she lived at another address was not enough by itself to show that she received the notice more than five days after it was issued. The court explained that she needed affirmative evidence supporting the claimed later receipt. The court also rejected equitable tolling, a doctrine that can extend a filing deadline when a person diligently pursues her rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing. The court found that the complaint did not allege diligence or extraordinary circumstances and noted the lengthy periods without communications or action.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing an amended complaint. It allowed Melissa E. V. 30 days to amend and explained that an amended complaint could address the timeliness issue by providing evidence about where she lived when the notice was sent and when she received it. The court also stated that any materials she wanted the court to consider should be included in the amended complaint. The court denied the motion to reopen as moot because the case had not been closed.

The court did not decide whether the Social Security Administration correctly denied supplemental security income. It explained that, if Melissa E. V. overcomes the timeliness challenge, the court would then review whether the agency’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence and used the correct legal standard. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and the motion to reopen as moot.