Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

David Smith applied for disability benefits under Titles II and XVI, alleging that his disability began on June 30, 2014. On January 30, 2018, an administrative law judge found that Smith was disabled beginning August 3, 2017, making the decision partially favorable rather than fully favorable. The Appeals Council denied Smith’s request for review on October 19, 2018. The opinion states that this made the administrative law judge’s decision final.

Smith filed a federal complaint seeking judicial review on December 28, 2018. The Commissioner previously moved to dismiss because the complaint was filed late. The court granted that motion and allowed Smith to amend his complaint to allege facts supporting equitable tolling, which is an exception that can extend a filing deadline in certain circumstances. Smith filed a first amended complaint, and the Commissioner filed the second motion to dismiss addressed in this order.

Smith’s Position

Smith alleged that a change in representation and the unavailability of his new lawyer affected receipt of the Appeals Council’s decision. According to the lawyer’s declaration, the former lawyer retired in September 2018 and sent case-transfer notes to the new lawyer. The new lawyer was outside the country from September through December 2018 and lacked access to the office’s electronic databases and Smith’s paper file. The lawyer also could not receive regular physical mail and was unable to arrange for someone else to monitor it. The lawyer returned on December 28, 2018, received the Appeals Council’s notice, and filed Smith’s complaint that same day. The opinion states that Smith also did not know about the Appeals Council’s denial.

Legal Standard

Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act allows a person to seek judicial review of a final decision by filing a civil action within 60 days after the notice is mailed. The regulations generally presume that the person received the Appeals Council’s notice five days after the notice date. The Appeals Council may extend the filing period for good cause.

The court explained that this 60-day period is a statute of limitations, meaning a deadline for bringing the action. Although the deadline can sometimes be extended through equitable tolling, the person seeking that relief must show that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. Ordinary attorney mistakes or neglect generally do not satisfy that standard.

Court’s Reasoning

The parties did not dispute that Smith filed the action after the statutory period expired. The court considered Smith’s explanation—that his lawyer was unavailable, had received transfer notes suggesting that no time-sensitive matter was pending, and did not receive the notice while traveling abroad.

The court concluded that these circumstances did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance. Relying on similar decisions, the court characterized the situation as no more than an ordinary mistake and held that equitable tolling did not apply.

Disposition

The court granted the Commissioner’s Second Motion to Dismiss Smith’s first amended complaint. The court stated that any attempt to plead around the filing deadline would be futile, so Smith’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The court also ordered that a separate judgment issue.