United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: DKT.
NOS. 24, 27
JEFFREY S. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Now
before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Plaintiff Henry Allen Bynum (“Bynum”), and the
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration
(“Commissioner”). Having carefully reviewed the
administrative record and considered the parties’
papers and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby
DENIES Bynum’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS
the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Bynum
brings this action to obtain judicial review of the
Commissioner’s decision to deny his request for waiver
of overpayment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Bynum,
then 62 years old, applied for Social Security benefits on
September 23, 2009. (Certified Administrative Record
(“AR”) 16-17.) In doing so, Bynum acknowledged
that “if [he] decide[d] to go back to work [he] must
stay within the gross annual earnings limit of $14, 160.00
yr/$1, 800.00 mo.” (AR 17.) Additionally, he
acknowledged that if there was a possibility that he may earn
wages in excess of this limit, he “must contact Social
Security right away” to avoid creating an overpayment.
(AR 17.) In a letter that notified Bynum of his benefit
award, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
stated “your benefits are based on the information you
gave us. If this information changes, it could affect your
benefits. For this reason, it is important that you report
changes to us right away.” (AR 18.) Bynum began
receiving Social Security benefits in October 2009.
(Id.)
During
this time, Bynum continued to work and earned a gross
paycheck in excess of the SSA’s prescribed earning
limits. (AR 67-93.) On June 16, 2011, the SSA notified him
that he had received an overpayment of $17, 652.00 in
benefits for 2010. (AR 21.) The SSA explained that he had
earned an actual income of $78, 983.00 despite reporting an
income of $0.00. (Id.) Further, the SSA notified
Bynum on April 24, 2012 that his future benefits would no
longer be paid. (AR 32.) On May 11, 2012, Bynum submitted a
request for waiver of overpayment due to “extreme
hardship.” (AR 34.) He stated his net pay was merely
$720 a month due to delinquent tax payments. (Id.)
In his request, Bynum noted, “[m]y take-home [pay] is
less than the monthly allowance for working
individuals....” (AR 39.)
On May
26, 2012, the SSA informed Bynum that the overpayment totaled
$33, 921.00 for excess benefits paid between January 2010 and
December 2011. (AR 56.) Five days later, Bynum filed a
request for reconsideration to waive the payment. (AR 59.) In
his filing, he stated that if he was required to pay, it
would result in an inability to pay “bills for food,
clothing, housing, medical care, or other necessary
expenses.” (Id.) The SSA classified
Bynum’s overpayment as an entitlement overpayment and
denied his request for reconsideration. (AR 11, 97.) The SSA
explained, “Mr. Bynum filed an application indicating
that he was retiring when in fact it appears that he never
stopped working.” (AR 98.) Additionally, the SSA stated
Bynum received “clear instructions on his reporting
responsibilities” when he applied for benefits. (AR
98.) On August 31, 2012, Bynum requested a hearing with an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to appeal the
SSA’s decision. (AR 108.) In this application, Bynum
declared his “earning[s] are moot” due to tax
garnishes placed upon his wages. (Id.)
On
August 30, 2013, the ALJ affirmed the SSA’s decision
and denied Bynum’s request to waive the overpayment.
(AR 11-15.) The ALJ found that Bynum was “not without
fault” in creating the overpayment and therefore, was
ineligible to receive a waiver. (AR 13.) Bynum requested
review of the ALJ’s decision, which the Appeals Council
denied on February 12, 2015. (AR 2.)
Having
exhausted his administrative remedies, Bynum commenced this
action for judicial review of the ALJ’s decision. Bynum
argues he was without fault for the overpayment and,
therefore, repayment should be waived. He argues he
“understood” and “was led to believe”
that the SSA’s earning limit was calculated on net pay
instead of gross pay. (Pl. Br. at 6.) For support, Bynum
cites the capitalization pattern of the words
“take-home” and “gross” on the
SSA’s waiver application form. (Id.)
Additionally, he claims that the SSA was negligent, because
it failed to notify him that the limits were based on gross
earnings instead of net earnings. Further, Bynum argues the
ALJ “erred in his conclusion” that Bynum was
“evasive” in his testimony. (Id. at 7.)
On
February 4, 2016, Bynum filed the instant motion for summary
judgment. On March 3, 2016, the Commissioner filed a
cross-motion for summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
A
federal district court may not disturb the
Commissioner’s denial of a waiver of overpayment
request if the decision is supported by substantial evidence
and without legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hill v.
Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012). Considering
the administrative record as a whole, “[s]ubstantial
evidence means more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Robbins v. SSA, 466 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2006);
Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.
1997). “[W]here the evidence is susceptible to more
than one rational interpretation” and the ALJ has
provided a rational interpretation, the district court must
uphold the decision of the ALJ. Andrews v. Shalala,
53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995).
B. The
ALJ’s Determination That Bynum Was Not Without Fault Is
Supported By Substantial Evidence and Free of Legal Error.
Bynum
argues that the ALJ erred in the decision to find him not
without fault for the overpayment, and the ALJ’s
decision to deny him a waiver of overpayment must be
reversed. Conversely, the Commissioner argues that the
ALJ’s determination that Bynum was not without fault
for the ...