Sladkov v. Berryhill

Background

Halina Sladkov sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner’s final decision denying her request for a waiver of recovery of an alleged Social Security overpayment. She asked the court to remand the case for issuance of a waiver or, alternatively, for further proceedings.

Sladkov applied for spousal insurance benefits in 2005 based on her marriage to Vladimir Sladkov. The Social Security Administration later sent her a letter stating that she would receive widow’s benefits because of Vladimir Sladkov’s death. In 2015, the agency informed her that she was not entitled to spousal benefits because the marriage had been annulled in June 1988. The annulment judgment stated that Sladkov had been served with legal process in December 1987, and a copy of the judgment was mailed to her address on June 28, 1988.

Sladkov requested a waiver of overpayment recovery. She said the overpayment was not her fault because she believed the benefits were her own. She also said she did not know until January 2015 that Vladimir Sladkov had died or that they were no longer married, and that she had limited English.

After a hearing at which Sladkov testified with an interpreter, the administrative law judge found that she had been overpaid and was at fault. The administrative law judge relied on the annulment judgment and mailing, as well as Sladkov’s testimony that Vladimir Sladkov had only sporadically stayed with her after 1988 and that she knew he was pursuing other women. The Appeals Council denied review.

Legal standard

A person may obtain a waiver of Social Security overpayment recovery only if the person was without fault and requiring repayment would either defeat the purpose of the Social Security program or be against fairness and good conscience. Under the applicable regulation, fault can include accepting a payment the person knew or should have known was incorrect.

The claimant bears the burden of proving that she was without fault. The court reviews the Commissioner’s refusal to waive repayment for substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

Court’s analysis

Sladkov argued that the administrative law judge lacked substantial evidence because the judge did not adequately consider her limited English, her statement that she believed she was receiving her own benefits, her testimony that Vladimir Sladkov had not told her about the annulment, or her son’s statement.

The court rejected these arguments. It explained that the administrative law judge had to consider Sladkov’s language limitation but was not required to make a separate finding specifically discussing every personal circumstance. The court also found that Sladkov had not shown that her English limitation prevented her from understanding the relevant documents. Her filings said only that she “may not have understood” them or that her understanding was unclear.

The court further relied on evidence that Sladkov had applied for spousal benefits, received a letter awarding spousal benefits, and received a letter stating that she would receive widow’s benefits. Her testimony that Vladimir Sladkov lived with her only sporadically, pursued other women, disappeared, and did not tell her about the annulment also supported the finding that she knew or should have known that she was no longer married to him.

Although the administrative law judge did not specifically discuss Sladkov’s son’s statement, the court found that the statement did not negate the evidence supporting the fault finding. Because the administrative law judge’s finding of fault was supported by substantial evidence, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to decide whether repayment would defeat the program’s purpose or be against fairness and good conscience.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.