Guevara v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-09657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Guevara v. Commissioner, Judge Carter granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss because the Social Security appeal was filed too late.
Grissel Guevara’s claim on behalf of T.A.C. was affected by the ruling; the court granted the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion to dismiss without deciding eligibility for supplemental security income.
What happened
In Guevara v. Commissioner of Social Security, Grissel Guevara sued on behalf of her child, T.A.C., challenging the denial of supplemental security income. She filed the federal case after an administrative judge denied the claim and the Social Security Administration denied further review.
The court concluded that the case was filed after the 60-day deadline. It rejected Guevara’s unsupported claim that she received the final decision later and found no basis to extend the deadline because she had received consistent deadline information and had not shown diligence or extraordinary circumstances.
The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide whether T.A.C. was actually eligible for benefits.
The detailed version
- Guevara v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-09657
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 4, 2020
Background
Grissel Guevara, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action on behalf of her minor child, T.A.C. She challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying eligibility for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
According to the opinion, T.A.C. developed asthmatic allergies at approximately four months old. Guevara applied for supplemental security income, but the Social Security Administration denied the application. After a hearing on June 2, 2017, an Administrative Law Judge denied the claim on August 24, 2017. The request for review was denied on August 3, 2018, making the Administrative Law Judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
Guevara’s former attorney sent her a letter dated August 13, 2018, stating that she had 60 days from August 3, 2018, to file a civil action. Guevara alleged that she received the Social Security Administration’s denial letter on August 31, 2018. She filed this action on October 19, 2018. The Commissioner later moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Guevara did not file an opposition brief, but she timely responded to the court’s order to explain that failure.
Timeliness standard
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a claimant generally has 60 days after receiving the Commissioner’s final decision to bring a federal action. The regulations presume that the claimant received the decision five days after the notice date unless the claimant makes a reasonable showing that actual receipt occurred later.
The court explained that the deadline is strictly enforced. It also recognized equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline when a claimant has pursued rights diligently and extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing. Examples may include inadequate notice of extension procedures or conflicting information about the filing deadline.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Guevara did not provide additional factual support for her allegation that she received the decision on August 31, 2018. She therefore failed to overcome the presumption that she received it five days after the August 3, 2018 notice date. The court concluded that the October 19, 2018 filing was untimely.
The court also considered the claim under the alternative possibility that the relevant receipt date was August 13, 2018, the date of the former attorney’s letter. Even under that approach, the court found that the October 19 filing was more than 60 days late.
The court declined to apply equitable tolling. It found that Guevara did not explain why the filing was late, received clear and consistent information from the Social Security Administration and her former attorney about the deadline, and had not shown diligence, including because she failed to timely oppose the dismissal motion.
Disposition
The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice. Because the court resolved the matter on the filing deadline and did not decide whether T.A.C. qualified for supplemental security income, the decision was procedural rather than a ruling on the benefits claim’s merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.