Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-00373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Rice v. Commissioner, Judge Koeltl ordered a pro se plaintiff to clarify her Social Security appeal because no complaint or final agency decision was shown.
Nicole Rice, who was representing herself in a proposed Social Security appeal; the order also required court-clerk action concerning service.
What happened
In Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security, Nicole Rice sought review of a Social Security disability-benefits determination and had received permission to proceed without paying filing fees. She had not filed a complaint, and the court could not tell whether she had filed a claim with the Social Security Administration or received a final decision.
The court explained that federal judicial review generally requires a final decision by the Commissioner after the claimant completes the administrative process. If Rice had completed that process, the court instructed her to use the attached complaint form and provide dates for the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, the Appeals Council notice, and her receipt of that notice, attaching the notice if available.
Judge John G. Koeltl did not decide whether Rice was entitled to benefits. He asked the Clerk to mail her the order and strike the Order of Service; the order also directed her to explain any failure to file within 60 days of receiving the Appeals Council notice.
The detailed version
- Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-00373
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 9, 2021
Background
Nicole Rice appeared without a lawyer and filed an application to proceed without paying court fees. The court had granted that application on January 19, 2021. Her application indicated that she sought judicial review of a Title XVI Social Security disability-benefits determination and included a Social Security Administration form called a Statement of Claimant or Other Person. But Rice had not filed a complaint, and the court could not determine from the materials whether she had filed a claim with the Social Security Administration or whether the Commissioner had issued a final decision.
Jurisdiction and administrative exhaustion
The court explained that 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) gives federal courts authority to review a challenge to a final decision by the Commissioner, generally when the appeal is filed within 60 days after the claimant receives the Appeals Council’s notice. The court also explained that a claimant generally must complete the Social Security Administration’s administrative review process before appealing to federal court. The stated steps ordinarily include filing an application, receiving an initial determination, seeking reconsideration, requesting a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and asking the Appeals Council to review the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.
Instructions to the plaintiff
The court instructed that, if Rice had filed a claim and completed the administrative process, she must use the attached complaint form for an action under § 405(g) and provide the date of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, the date of the Appeals Council’s notice, and the date she received that notice. She also had to attach a copy of the notice to her amended complaint. If she had not filed the application in this court within 60 days after receiving the notice, the court instructed her to include facts explaining the delay.
Disposition
The order did not decide whether Rice qualified for Social Security benefits or whether any agency decision was legally or factually correct. Judge John G. Koeltl directed the Clerk to mail Rice a copy of the order and asked the Clerk to strike the Order of Service. The opinion does not state whether Rice ultimately had a qualifying final agency decision or whether a complaint was later filed.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.