Calderon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Jason Calderon, a Bronx, New York, resident representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits federal-court review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security after an administrative hearing. The court had previously allowed Calderon to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Calderon used the court’s form for Social Security appeals. He stated that the Appeals Council letter was dated March 21, 2020, and that he received it on that date. But the document attached to his complaint was titled “Notice of Disapproved Claim,” not an Appeals Council letter. He did not attach the Appeals Council letter requested by the form.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Section 405(g) generally permits review only of a final decision by the Commissioner. That requirement includes presenting a benefits claim to the Social Security Administration and completing the required administrative review process. The usual steps are an initial determination, a request for reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and a request for Appeals Council review.

The court said Calderon’s complaint suggested that he had not completed those steps or received a final decision. He also did not allege facts showing that any failure to complete the process should be excused. Because the complaint did not allege facts establishing the court’s authority to hear the case under Section 405(g), the complaint could not proceed at that time. The court did not decide whether the Commissioner correctly ruled on Calderon’s benefits claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Calderon leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must provide the date of the administrative law judge’s decision, the date of the Appeals Council letter, and the date Calderon received that letter. It must also attach the Appeals Council letter. If Calderon had not completed the administrative review process, he had to include facts explaining why that failure should be excused.

The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it, so any facts or claims Calderon wanted to maintain had to appear in the amended filing. The court stated that if Calderon failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, it would dismiss the action for failure to complete the required review, without prejudice to filing a new action after completing that process. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.