Perlman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Abraham Perlman filed the action without a lawyer on behalf of his son, Y.P., challenging an April 2, 2024 decision by the Social Security Appeals Council. The Appeals Council found Y.P. ineligible for Supplemental Security Income for several months because his parents’ resources, after applicable deductions, exceeded the amount that regulations treated as available to him. The Appeals Council found that excess resources did not make Y.P. ineligible for several other months and returned the matter to a local office to consider other eligibility requirements and payment.

The Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The Commissioner argued that the action was filed too late under the Social Security Act and that Perlman could not represent Y.P. without a lawyer because Y.P. was no longer a minor.

Representation

Federal law generally permits people to represent themselves but generally does not permit a nonlawyer to represent another person. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recognized an exception allowing a nonlawyer parent who meets basic competence standards and has a significant stake in the outcome to represent a minor child in an appeal involving disability benefits.

The court held that Perlman had not established that he could continue representing Y.P. Y.P. turned eighteen in October 2022 and was over twenty years old when the opinion was issued. Although Perlman said he had incurred expenses for Y.P. and had a guardianship application pending, he did not claim that he had custody of Y.P., had assumed responsibility for Y.P.’s care, or would receive and distribute any benefits awarded to Y.P. The court therefore could not conclude that Perlman’s interests were currently closely connected to Y.P.’s interests.

Timeliness

The court also found that the complaint appeared to be untimely. The Social Security Act generally requires a civil action challenging a benefits decision to be filed within 60 days after the claimant receives notice. Regulations presume that the notice is received five days after the date on the notice unless there is a reasonable showing otherwise.

Perlman alleged that he received the April 2, 2024 decision no later than April 7, 2024. On that basis, the filing deadline was June 6, 2024. Although Perlman mailed the complaint on June 6, the Clerk’s Office received it on June 10, and the court treated June 10 as the filing date. The court stated that the complaint therefore appeared to have been filed several days late.

The court explained that the deadline may be extended in rare circumstances through equitable tolling, which allows a deadline to be extended when an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court found that Perlman had offered no evidence of such a circumstance in the existing complaint. It nevertheless allowed an amended complaint because of Congress’s intent to protect Social Security claimants and because Y.P. could address both the representation and timeliness issues in an amended pleading.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The court allowed an amended complaint naming Y.P. as the plaintiff and alleging facts that could address the Commissioner’s timeliness argument. The amended complaint had to be filed by Monday, November 3, 2025. If no amended complaint was filed by then, the court stated that it would close the case. Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk of Court to close the Commissioner’s motion docket entry.