Erica K. v. O'Malley
- Donna Ryu
- 4:24-cv-03740
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Erica K. v. O’Malley, Judge Ryu denied summary judgment after finding substantial evidence supported dismissal of Erica K.’s hearing request.
Erica K. and the Social Security Commissioner. The ruling left the dismissal of Erica K.’s administrative hearing request undisturbed, while the court did not decide the merits of the alleged overpayment or benefit suspension.
What happened
In Erica K. v. O’Malley, Erica K. asked the federal court to review the suspension of her benefits, an overpayment notice, and dismissal of her request for a hearing before an administrative law judge.
Erica K. missed two scheduled hearings in 2023 after receiving notices warning that her request could be dismissed. She said she missed the first because of building-access and bathroom-related problems and the second because she recorded the wrong date. The administrative law judge found no good cause for the second absence and dismissed the hearing request. The court considered that dismissal but did not consider the overpayment or benefit-suspension issues because the Social Security Administration’s appeals body had not addressed them.
Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Erica K.’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Ryu found that the record supported the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Erica K. received notice, knew the consequences of missing the hearing, and had not shown good cause for missing it.
The detailed version
- Erica K. v. O'Malley · No. 4:24-cv-03740
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
Erica K., representing herself, challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s suspension of her benefits, notice of overpayment, and dismissal of her request for an administrative hearing. She had been found disabled in February 2011. After a later review, a disability examiner determined in November 2018 that her disability had ceased.
Erica K. did not appear for a consultative examination in May 2019 or for a disability-hearing-officer hearing in June 2019. She later requested a hearing before an administrative law judge, stating that she had not received notices because her address had not been updated. She attended a March 20, 2023 hearing, where the administrative law judge postponed the matter so she could obtain medical evidence. The judge also explained her right to representation and told her that she could appear in person, by telephone, or by video.
The hearing was rescheduled for July 10, 2023. Erica K. did not attend. She said it had taken 20 minutes to enter the federal building and that, on some days, she could not be far from a toilet. The administrative law judge found good cause to reschedule the hearing one more time and warned that the case could be dismissed if she did not attend the next hearing.
The next hearing was set for October 2, 2023. Erica K. again did not appear. She later explained that she had mixed up the date and had written down October 3 instead of October 2. She also asked to change to a telephone hearing if she were given another hearing date. On November 27, 2023, the administrative law judge found no good cause for the failure to appear and dismissed her hearing request. The judge stated that the July 2019 determination remained in effect. The Appeals Council denied review.
What the court reviewed
The court reviewed the dismissal of Erica K.’s hearing request under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows federal-court review of a final Social Security decision. The court explained that a claimant generally must complete several administrative steps before seeking federal review, including requesting an administrative law judge hearing and review by the Appeals Council.
The Commissioner agreed that the court could review the 2023 dismissal but argued that the court could not review the overpayment or benefit-suspension issues because the dismissal did not decide those matters. The court agreed. It therefore limited its review to whether the dismissal of the hearing request was proper and declined to consider the merits of the overpayment and benefit-suspension claims.
Court’s analysis
Under the applicable regulation, an administrative law judge may dismiss a hearing request when the claimant does not appear after receiving notice that dismissal may result, and the claimant does not show good cause. The regulation requires consideration of physical, mental, educational, and language limitations.
The court found that Erica K. received two notices for each of the 2023 hearings. The notices warned that failing to appear could result in dismissal and informed her that she could request to attend remotely. After missing the July hearing, she was given another opportunity and warned again that the case could be dismissed. The record did not show that she tried to reschedule either hearing or appear remotely.
The court also found that Erica K.’s explanation for missing the October hearing—that she had written down the wrong date—confirmed that she had received notice of the hearing. The court concluded that the record showed she understood that she needed to attend and understood the consequences of not appearing. It also noted that she could have requested a telephone hearing if her physical limitations prevented her from leaving home. The court considered her history of missing other hearings as additional support for the administrative law judge’s decision.
Disposition
The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding that Erica K. lacked good cause for missing the October 2, 2023 hearing. The court denied Erica K.’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion states that a separate judgment would follow.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.