Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Cathrine R Lee filed this action alleging that the Commissioner had repeatedly failed to respond to her requests to reinstate or continue her disability benefits while she sought reconsideration of the decision ending those benefits. She attached three requests for reconsideration and later asserted that she had not received a notice concerning continued payments under Social Security Administration policy. The Commissioner moved to dismiss, and Lee did not respond. The court treated the complaint as a self-represented pleading and construed it liberally.

Claim for continued benefits

The Commissioner argued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, that Lee’s request for continued benefits was moot because the agency had already granted that request. The Commissioner submitted evidence that the agency issued Lee two payments—$4,614 on September 17, 2021, and $1,714 on October 1, 2021—representing retroactive continuation of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits.

The court found that Lee’s reconsideration request remained pending, and it was not clear whether she continued receiving benefits while awaiting the Commissioner’s decision. Because the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the claim was moot based only on the September and October payments, it denied the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss Lee’s claim to reinstate her benefits.

Claim concerning delay in reconsideration

The Commissioner also argued under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, that Lee had not exhausted her administrative remedies because her reconsideration request was still pending. The court rejected that characterization of the claim. It interpreted Lee’s allegations as asserting that the agency had taken too long to decide her reconsideration request.

The court explained that the claim could be understood as seeking mandamus relief—an order requiring a government official or agency to perform a legally required duty—or relief under the Administrative Procedure Act for agency action that was unreasonably delayed. Under either approach, however, the complaint was too brief. It did not allege facts showing that the agency had a clear, nondiscretionary duty supporting mandamus relief or that the agency’s delay was unreasonable under the factors used for Administrative Procedure Act delay claims.

The court therefore granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss Lee’s unreasonable-delay claim. It also granted Lee leave to amend that claim because the court could not say that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

In Cathrine R Lee v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Judge Virginia Demarchi granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss: the motion to dismiss the claim to reinstate benefits was denied, and the motion to dismiss the unreasonable-delay claim was granted with leave to amend. Lee could file an amended complaint by June 24, 2022. The order did not decide whether Lee was ultimately entitled to benefits or whether the agency had unlawfully delayed its decision.