Aronovsky v. Berryhill

Background

Robert M. Aronovsky appealed a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security concerning his eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration had determined that Aronovsky was ineligible for SSI from November 1, 2015, through October 1, 2018, because he transferred a resource for less than fair market value.

In October 2015, Aronovsky and his two brothers each inherited $160,000 from the distribution of a family trust. On October 29, 2015, Aronovsky withdrew $159,800 from his checking account and transferred it to a joint account held by his brothers. Aronovsky and his brothers lived in a house owned by their mother. One brother was Aronovsky’s appointed representative payee, and the brothers cared for Aronovsky and their mother. The brothers used their inheritance money to pay $401,889.27 in debt owed on the house.

The Social Security Administration notified Aronovsky that he was ineligible for SSI because of the transfer. After his request for reconsideration was denied, an administrative law judge held a hearing and concluded that the three-year period of ineligibility applied. The administrative law judge found that Aronovsky had used nearly all of his inheritance to pay part of his mother’s outstanding mortgage but had obtained no ownership interest in the house. The Appeals Council denied review.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It could disturb the decision only if it was unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an incorrect legal standard. Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate support for the conclusion. When the evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must defer to the Commissioner’s decision.

Parties’ arguments and analysis

SSI is available only to people who meet the program’s requirements concerning age, blindness, disability, income, and resources. For an individual such as Aronovsky, the resource limit is $2,000. The Social Security Administration’s rules provide for a period of ineligibility of up to 36 months when a person transfers resources for less than fair market value, unless an exception applies.

The statute provides an exception when the claimant makes a satisfactory showing, under the Commissioner’s regulations, that the resources were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than qualifying for benefits. The regulation creates a presumption that a transfer for less than fair market value was made to establish SSI or Medicaid eligibility. The individual bears the burden of rebutting that presumption with convincing evidence.

Aronovsky argued that the transfer was made for another purpose: making a mortgage payment and avoiding foreclosure of his mother’s home, where he lived with his family. The court recognized that the administrative law judge credited testimony and records showing that Aronovsky used the money toward the mortgage and that he relied on his family for support. But the court concluded that Aronovsky had not identified convincing evidence showing that the transfer was exclusively for a reason other than maintaining SSI eligibility.

The court also noted testimony that not all of the $159,800 was needed for the mortgage. The remainder was used for expenses, property taxes, maintenance of the house, and similar purposes, although the particular expenses and amounts were not specified. Based on the record and the deferential standard of review, the court found that the administrative law judge had substantial evidence for imposing the three-year period of ineligibility.

Disposition

The court denied Aronovsky’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file.