United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES C. FRANCIS, IV, Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff, James Humber, brings this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his claim for retroactive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. The parties consented to proceed before me for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Commissioner then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. By order dated June 3, 2015, I converted the Commissioner's application to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided the plaintiff an opportunity to respond accordingly.
For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the case is remanded to the Social Security Administration (the "SSA") for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
Mr. Humber filed applications for disability insurance benefits and SSI in September 2003. (Declaration of Katherine Rae Lingen dated Feb. 19, 2015 ("Lingen Decl."), ¶ (3)(a); Disability Determination and Transmittal, attached as Exh. 1 to Lingen Decl., at 1). The Commissioner denied his applications on April 2, 2004. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(a); SSA Disability Determination at 2). Pursuant to the SSA's guidelines, Mr. Humber requested a hearing before an ALJ to challenge the agency's determination. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(b); SSA Letter dated June 10, 2004, attached as Exh. 2 to Lingen Decl.). Following a hearing on March 1, 2005, the ALJ awarded Mr. Humber disability insurance benefits and found him eligible for SSI payments as of May 5, 2003. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(c); SSA Decision dated March 10, 2005, attached as part of Exh. 3 to Lingen Decl., at 4).
On May 11, 2005, the SSA informed Mr. Humber that his first payment of SSI benefits in the amount of $7, 367.72 was being withheld pursuant to an interim assistance reimbursement agreement that he had entered into with the Westchester County Department of Social Services ("DSS"). (SSA Notice dated May 11, 2005, attached to Complaint ("Compl.") at 11). Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Humber agreed that the SSA would reimburse DSS for any assistance paid to him while his application for SSI benefits was pending from September 2003 through December 2003. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(g); Letter of Elizabeth B. Bake dated Nov. 17, 2011 ("Bake 11/17/11 Letter"), attached as Exh. 7 to Lingen Decl.).
On July 7, 2011, Mr. Humber sent a letter to the Commissioner and filed a request for reconsideration seeking review of the amount of retroactive SSI benefits paid to him. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(d); Letter of James Humber dated July 7, 2011 & Request for Reconsideration dated July 6, 2011, attached as Exh. 4 to Lingen Decl.). In response, the agency acknowledged that Mr. Humber's inquiry related to the payment of his retroactive disability benefits but indicated only that an underpayment of $909.00 had occurred in his case and stated that it was depositing that amount in his bank account. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(e); Letter of Elizabeth B. Bake dated July 27, 2011, attached as Exh. 5 to Lingen Decl.). Mr. Humber sent the agency six additional letters concerning the unresolved issue of the diversion of funds to DSS. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(f); Letters of James Humber dated Aug. 4, 2011, Sept. 7, 2011, Oct. 4, 2011, Nov. 3, 2011, Nov. 15, 2011, and Nov. 28, 2011 (collectively "Humber Aug.-Nov. 2011 Letters"), attached as Exh. 6 to Lingen Decl.). In each, he requested information regarding his retroactive benefits but did not request a hearing on the agency's determination of his request for reconsideration. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(f); Humber Aug.-Nov. 2011 Letters). In his last two letters, he alleged that DSS did not receive any of the $7, 367.72 in retroactive benefits. (Letters of James Humber dated Nov. 15, 2011, and Nov. 28, 2011).
In response to Mr. Humber's November 3, 2011, letter, the SSA sent him a letter reiterating that it had sent his retroactive benefits payment of $7, 367.72 to DSS. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(g); Bake 11/17/11 Letter). The SSA's letter explained that DSS is the agency responsible for deducting the assistance paid to Mr. Humber from the amount given to DSS by the SSA, but it failed to make any reference to the SSA's administrative appeals process. (Bake 11/17/11 Letter) ("After the [DSS] deducts the assistance paid to you, that department, not the [SSA], is responsible for refunding any remaining balance to you....").
On December 2, 2011, Mr. Humber submitted a second request for reconsideration stating that he had not received an overpayment. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(h); Request for Reconsideration dated Dec. 2. 2011, attached as Exh. 8 to Lingen Decl.) ("I received 3 different notices telling me 3 different things. I am not overpaid, and I should not be made to pay back any money you say I owe. It was SSA's mistake that I was overpaid."). It is unclear from the record to what this request for reconsideration was referring and whether it was distinct from the claim for retroactive benefits in Mr. Humber's initial request for reconsideration. (Lingen Decl., ¶ (3)(d); Letter of James Humber dated July 7, 2011 & Request for Reconsideration dated July 6, 2011).
Mr. Humber then filed this action on July 17, 2014, seeking judicial review of the SSA's determination of his retroactive SSI benefits. Mr. Humber argues that it is "unfair" for the SSA to claim that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies because the SSA has failed to act on his request for three years. (Humber Aff., ¶ 10).
A. Standard of Review
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court will grant summary judgment if "the movant shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986); Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 285-286 (2d Cir. 2002); Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 189 F.3d 208, 214 (2d Cir. 1999). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The opposing party then must come forward with specific materials establishing the existence of a genuine dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Where the non-movant fails to make "a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial, " summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
In assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Vann v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1040, 1048-49 (2d Cir. 1995). However, the court must inquire whether "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party, " Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, and grant summary judgment where the non-movant's evidence is conclusory, speculative, or not significantly probative. Id. at 249-50. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine ...