Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-01718
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Judge Daniels dismissed Ramos v. Kizakazi because Ramos filed her Social Security complaint too late.
Carmen Ramos’s federal challenge to the denial of her disability insurance benefits was dismissed as untimely; the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security, Carmen Ramos, representing herself, asked the court to review the denial of her disability benefits. The Commissioner asked the court to dismiss the case as untimely.
The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation after finding no clear error. It concluded that Ramos had not shown she received the Appeals Council’s notice late, and that her attorney’s receipt counted for her. The court also found no basis to extend the filing deadline because Ramos had not shown that Hurricane Maria-related hardships left her unable to act.
Judge George B. Daniels granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Ramos’s complaint as untimely filed, directed the clerk to close the case, and adopted the recommendation in full.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-01718
- George Daniels
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
Carmen Ramos brought an action under the Social Security Act seeking review of the Commissioner’s determination that she did not qualify for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended granting that motion. Ramos did not file proper objections; she submitted a letter attaching a medical note, but the letter did not address the recommendation that the case be dismissed as untimely.
Timeliness
The court reviewed the portions of the magistrate judge’s report that were not properly challenged for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake after reviewing the record. It found none and adopted the report in full. The court explained that a claimant generally has 60 days after receiving notice of the Appeals Council’s denial to file a federal complaint, with receipt presumed five days after the notice unless the claimant makes a reasonable showing otherwise.
The Appeals Council denied Ramos’s request for review on December 15, 2017, and sent notice that day to her last known address, copying her attorney. The notice explained the 60-day deadline. Although Ramos argued that she never received the notice, the court relied on the finding that her attorney received it. The court stated that clients are bound by their attorneys’ actions—or inaction—when the attorneys act as representatives. It therefore concluded that Ramos had not rebutted the presumed receipt of notice and that her complaint was untimely.
Equitable tolling
Ramos also sought equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. The court recognized the hardship she experienced while caring for her elderly mother after Hurricane Maria and handling her mother’s affairs after her death. But it agreed that these circumstances did not justify extending the deadline because Ramos had not shown that she was incapacitated. The court found that Magistrate Judge Cott correctly declined to find that Ramos was entitled to equitable tolling.
Ruling
Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s report and recommendation in full. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Ramos’s complaint as untimely filed, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.