R.S. v. Berryhill

Background

R.S. sued the Commissioner of Social Security after an Administrative Law Judge denied his disability-benefits claim. The Appeals Council denied review on November 6, 2018. The notice stated that R.S. had 60 days to file a civil action, beginning the day after he received the notice, and that receipt was presumed five days after mailing.

R.S. filed his complaint on January 11, 2019. The Commissioner moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was filed after the 60-day deadline and that R.S. had not requested an extension. R.S. responded that the late filing resulted from excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

Timeliness and excusable neglect

The court calculated the presumed receipt date as November 11, 2018. Because the 60-day period began the next day, the court determined that the filing deadline was January 10, 2019—not January 9, as the Commissioner repeatedly argued. R.S.’s complaint was therefore one day late.

The court applied the factors used to decide whether neglect was excusable: prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and good faith. It found no meaningful prejudice to the Commissioner, emphasized that the delay was only one day, and noted that the Commissioner had made an error of the same one-day magnitude in calculating the deadline. R.S.’s counsel explained that the wrong date had been entered into a software system, producing an incorrect deadline. The court cautioned counsel to use greater care but found that the parties had acted in good faith.

The court held that the one-day delay was caused by excusable neglect under Rule 60.

Equitable tolling

Equitable tolling is a fairness-based extension of a filing deadline. The court explained that it generally requires diligent pursuit of rights and extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing. It found that R.S. had diligently pursued his disability claim through the administrative process and then filed this case.

The court concluded that the one-day delay, the Commissioner’s equal miscalculation of the deadline, and the significant risk of prejudice to R.S. together made this a rare case in which equitable tolling should apply.

Ruling and next steps

The court denied the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss because R.S.’s one-day-late filing resulted from excusable neglect and equitable tolling applied. It did not decide whether the denial of disability benefits was legally erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.

The court ordered the parties to follow the Social Security procedural schedule, with modifications. The Commissioner had to answer within 14 days of the order, the parties had to meet and confer about a joint statement of the administrative record, and R.S. had to file a motion for summary judgment or remand within 28 days after service of the answer. The Commissioner then had 28 days to respond or file a counter-motion, and R.S. could file a reply within 14 days after that response.