George S. v. Saul

Background

George S. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of an Administrative Law Judge’s decision affirming the Social Security Administration’s suspension of his Plan to Achieve Self-Support, or PASS. A PASS allows a Supplemental Security Income recipient to pursue a vocational plan intended to reduce or eliminate reliance on disability benefits. The regulations require the plan to have a feasible employment goal, attainable steps, financial sustainability, and a showing that the goal will substantially reduce dependence on Supplemental Security Income or eliminate the need for disability benefits.

George S. began receiving Supplemental Security Income in September 1989. The Administration approved his PASS application in 2009, when he was 65. In 2010, after he reached full retirement age, his disability benefits became retirement benefits and his disability-based Supplemental Security Income became age-based Supplemental Security Income. In July 2017, the Administration suspended his PASS. It stated that his retirement benefits were $872 per month and his age-based Supplemental Security Income was $43.72, and that completing the plan would not make him self-sufficient from disability benefits. The Administration later denied reconsideration, describing the plan as futile because completing it would not affect his retirement benefits.

An Administrative Law Judge held a hearing and found the suspension appropriate. The Appeals Council denied further review. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, a procedure in which the court decides whether the undisputed record requires judgment for one side.

Arguments and analysis

George S. argued that the PASS regulations did not distinguish between disability-based and age-based benefits and therefore did not support the Administration’s interpretation. He also argued that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision lacked substantial evidence because completing the PASS could eliminate his $43.72 in age-based Supplemental Security Income.

The court concluded that the relevant regulation did not directly answer whether a person receiving retirement benefits could remain eligible for a PASS. The court therefore treated the regulation as ambiguous and applied deference to the Administration’s reasonable interpretation. The Administration reasonably concluded that a PASS designed to reduce reliance on disability benefits no longer served that purpose after George S.’s disability benefits became retirement benefits. Even if completing the plan eliminated his age-based Supplemental Security Income, it would not affect his $872 in retirement benefits.

The court also held that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Although the record could have supported another conclusion, the court said it could not substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s. The court noted that the Administration had made several questionable decisions in approving and extending the PASS, including doing so near and after George S.’s retirement age, but those observations did not change the ruling.

Disposition

The court denied George S.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter separate judgment in the Defendant’s favor. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order on October 20, 2020.