Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Earl Williams received Social Security disability benefits beginning in October 2003. He later became entitled to surviving divorced spouse benefits on the record of his deceased ex-spouse, effective March 2013. From March 2013 through April 2017, he received disability benefits on his own record and surviving divorced spouse benefits on the other record. In April 2017, the Social Security Administration told him that he had reached full retirement age, would begin receiving retirement benefits, and would receive an adjusted monthly amount because of his benefits on another record.

Williams sought reconsideration in March 2018, asserting that his monthly benefits were incorrect and that he was owed retroactive benefits. The agency told him that he had been overpaid $1,596 and that he could appeal or request a waiver. The opinion states that there is no record that he did either. Williams sought reconsideration again in December 2018. In March 2019, the agency determined that his surviving divorced spouse benefits had not been calculated correctly when he converted to retirement benefits and stated that it had issued him an additional $1,922. The agency also stated that he was then receiving the correct amount and had been paid all benefits due.

Williams requested a hearing before an administrative law judge in April 2019. He filed this federal case in February 2023, alleging that he had been denied the correct divorced-spouse benefits for more than a decade and that his hearing requests had not been answered. The hearing was eventually scheduled for September 7, 2023. Williams told the court that he appeared in person but that no one else was present. The government later advised that the Social Security Administration’s Office of Hearing Operations issued an unfavorable decision on January 16, 2024, but that Williams’s claim had not yet completed the administrative appeals process.

The parties’ positions and the motions

The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56. The Commissioner argued that Williams had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The court treated the motion for summary judgment as the basis for its ruling. The opinion states that the Commissioner did not dispute that Williams had presented his claim to the Social Security Administration.

Court’s analysis

Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), permits federal judicial review after a final decision by the Commissioner made after a hearing. The court explained that the final-decision requirement has two parts: the claimant must present the claim to the agency, and the claimant generally must complete the required administrative appeals. The first requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; the second is not jurisdictional and can be waived in limited circumstances.

The court found that Williams satisfied the first requirement because he presented his claim to the agency. He did not satisfy the second because, although he requested and received a hearing, he had not appealed the administrative law judge’s decision to the Appeals Council. Under the administrative process described by the court, a decision becomes final for federal judicial review only after the Appeals Council denies review or decides the case after review.

The court declined to excuse the exhaustion requirement. It acknowledged that the delay in providing Williams a hearing was regrettable, but found that he had now received a hearing. His claim was not collateral to his request for benefits because he sought an award of benefits directly. Exhaustion would not be futile because a final agency decision and a developed written record would allow more complete federal review. The court also found that Williams had not shown the type of irreparable harm that could support waiver, such as physical deterioration that could not be remedied through later payments.

The court further stated that, to the extent Williams sought an order requiring government action, he had not shown that no other adequate remedy was available. It also stated that the Social Security Act does not allow damages claims against the Commissioner or Social Security officials for constitutional violations arising from denial of benefits, and that a negligence claim was unavailable because Williams had not satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, without prejudice to Williams filing a new action after those remedies have been exhausted. The opinion does not decide whether Williams was ultimately entitled to additional Social Security benefits.