Dean A. v. Berryhill

Background

Dean A. received Supplemental Security Income beginning in 1995. He was incarcerated from October 2011 through September 2012 and did not notify the Social Security Administration of his incarceration. The agency later determined that he had been overpaid benefits. An administrative law judge reduced the overpayment amount to $6,932 and found that the overpayment covered November 2011 through August 2012. Dean A. did not appeal that decision to the Appeals Council.

Instead, Dean A. sought a waiver of collection of the overpayment. The agency denied the waiver request in two letters dated February 24, 2016. The letters gave conflicting instructions: one said to request reconsideration, while the other said to request a hearing before an administrative law judge. Dean A. said he mailed a hearing request on April 11, 2016, within 60 days of the denial. The agency stated that it never received the request.

After learning that the hearing had not been processed, Dean A.’s counsel contacted the agency several times. Dean A. then filed this case seeking an order requiring the Commissioner to process his hearing request and provide a hearing on the waiver denial.

Jurisdictional Issues

The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The court treated the motion as a factual challenge, meaning it could consider evidence outside the complaint, including declarations and exhibits.

The court explained that judicial review of Social Security matters generally requires a final agency decision made after a hearing and completion of the required administrative steps. But the court noted that Dean A. was not asking it to review the earlier decision that an overpayment occurred or the agency’s denial of the waiver. He was challenging the alleged failure to process his hearing request.

Mandamus

The court considered whether jurisdiction existed under the federal mandamus statute. Mandamus is an extraordinary court order requiring a federal official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty. The court stated that the Commissioner has a mandatory duty to hold a hearing after receiving a timely written hearing request.

The record, however, contained no independent evidence that the request was timely mailed. The only evidence was Dean A.’s counsel’s affidavit saying the request was mailed on April 11, 2016, along with a request form signed by Dean A. and counsel. There was no mailing proof, receipt, postmark, tracking number, metadata, or other independent evidence. Because the agency had no record of timely receiving the request, the court concluded that it could not find a clear duty requiring the Commissioner to hold the hearing. The court therefore found no jurisdiction under the mandamus statute.

Constitutional Claim

The court also considered whether Dean A. had presented a colorable constitutional due-process claim. A colorable claim is one substantial enough to support judicial review even when the usual administrative-review steps have not been completed.

The court rejected this basis for jurisdiction. It found that the agency’s February 24 letters advised Dean A. that further review was available. Because he had an opportunity to challenge the waiver denial, and because he could not show that the agency timely received his hearing request, the court concluded that he had not alleged a colorable due-process violation.

Disposition

The court concluded that Dean A. had not met his burden of proving federal-court jurisdiction. It granted the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the matter without prejudice. The court did not decide the merits of the waiver request or whether Dean A. was entitled to relief from repaying the overpayment. The court noted that agency regulations allow the Commissioner to extend the time for requesting a hearing when a claimant makes a written request and shows good cause for missing the deadline.