Garcia v. Social Security Administration
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-07170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Garcia v. Commissioner: Judge Swain granted more time to show exhaustion of Social Security appeals before federal review.
Samantha Garcia and her minor child S.S.; the Commissioner of Social Security was the defendant.
What happened
In Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, Samantha Garcia, representing herself and acting for her minor child S.S., asked for more time to amend her complaint. She said she was waiting for the Social Security Administration to provide records from her son’s case.
The court granted the extension but explained that Garcia did not need copies of those records. She could instead provide dates or facts showing that she completed the required administrative appeals, or explain why the exhaustion requirement should be excused.
The court ordered Garcia to file an amended complaint within 30 days and said no further extensions would be granted. It warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal without prejudice after a showing of good cause was lacking, and denied fee-free appeal status; Judge Swain signed the order.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Social Security Administration · No. 1:22-cv-07170
- Barbara Moses
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
Samantha Garcia, appearing without a lawyer, brought the action on behalf of her minor child, S.S. The court had previously given her 60 days to file an amended complaint showing that she had exhausted her administrative remedies with the Social Security Administration (SSA) before filing in federal court, or alleging facts that could justify excusing exhaustion. Garcia later requested more time because she was waiting for the SSA to send documents from her son’s case. She requested another extension on November 14, 2022, stating that she had been appealing her son’s case since October 2017.
Exhaustion requirement
The court explained that federal judicial review under the Social Security Act generally requires a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing. The administrative process generally includes an initial determination, a request for reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and a request for review by the Appeals Council. The court had found that Garcia’s statement that she had been appealing the case since 2017 did not by itself show that she completed this process or received a final decision.
The court explained that attaching agency decisions was one way to show exhaustion, but not the only way. Garcia could instead provide the dates of the administrative law judge’s decision, the Appeals Council’s decision, or receipt of the Appeals Council’s letter, even approximately. She could also describe which steps of the administrative review process she pursued. If she had not exhausted the process, she could allege facts supporting an excuse for that failure.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Garcia’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. The order required her to submit the amended complaint within 30 days of the order and stated that no further extensions would be granted. It warned that, if she failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice to filing a new action after exhaustion. The order did not decide whether S.S. was entitled to Social Security benefits. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.