Davidson v. Saul

Background

Jack Davidson sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that Davidson did not qualify as disabled under the cited provisions of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review.

The Social Security Administration sent notice of that denial on August 8, 2019. The notice stated that Davidson had 60 days after receiving it to file a civil action, and that receipt would be presumed five days after mailing. The opinion states that Davidson’s counsel apparently received the notice on August 16, making October 15 the filing deadline. Davidson filed his complaint on October 25.

On October 24, counsel requested a 30-day extension from the Social Security Administration. Counsel attributed the delay to the departure of the legal assistant responsible for calendaring deadlines and stated that the person who took over was unaware of the Appeals Council decision until after the deadline. The agency denied the extension. Davidson’s complaint did not explain the late filing, and he did not oppose the motion to dismiss.

Legal standard and analysis

The court applied 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which requires a Social Security judicial-review action to begin within 60 days after notice of the agency’s decision, unless the Commissioner allows additional time. The court explained that this deadline is a statute of limitations rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

The court considered equitable tolling, a doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. The court stated that tolling may apply when the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct or when extraordinary circumstances beyond the claimant’s control made timely filing impossible. The court described equitable tolling as a high bar reserved for rare cases and noted that the question depends heavily on the facts.

The court found no indication that the Social Security Administration engaged in wrongful conduct. It also found that Davidson had not shown extraordinary circumstances. The record did not explain the size of counsel’s office, its calendaring procedures, or why the oversight took more than 60 days to discover. The court further relied on precedent stating that ordinary counsel negligence generally does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Because Davidson supplied little factual information and did not oppose the motion, the court found insufficient grounds for tolling.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the untimely complaint. The order stated that it was based on the operative complaint and invited Davidson to move for leave to amend by April 14, 2020, at noon. Any such motion was to explain how the proposed amended complaint would correct the deficiencies identified in the order and other deficiencies raised in the motion to dismiss, and was to include a redlined copy of the proposed amended complaint. The opinion does not expressly state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.