Judge dismisses lawsuit vs Social Security Administration

The federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Social Security Administration acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin over alleged improper calculation of retirement insurance benefits, overcharging for Medicare, and SSA delays in processing various claims.

In an order on Friday, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted Colvin’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction since John A. Angello has not exhausted all administrative remedies.

Manglona denied Angello’s motion to stay proceedings. She directed the court’s clerk to close the case.

The judge said federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear a case only if authorized to do so by the Constitution and statute.

Manglona said the district court lacks jurisdiction to review SSA nonfinal actions. Therefore, the judge pointed out, the court cannot stay Angello’s case while keeping a watchful eye on administrative proceedings.

Manglona said the U.S. government, counsel for Colvin, is correct that another remedy—administrative appeal—is available to Angello, but it is hardly an adequate one if it takes forever.

In this instance, the judge said, the only delay that matters is delay in the pending administrative appeal of the reconsideration decision.

So far, Manglona said, the appeal has been pending only three months.

Manglona said mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is not called for in these circumstances.

Manglona said one can understand Angello’s expectation that if the agency is warning him it make take months to schedule his hearing, it will take that long and more.

“But that has not happened yet,” the judge said.

Manglona said hopefully, the U.S. government’s counsel will continue to offer their assistance to Angello in communicating with the Hearing Office, and he will get a hearing within a reasonable time, taking into account that his is not the only review the Hearing Office has to schedule.

In Colvin’s motion to dismiss, the U.S. government updated the court on the progress of Angello’s claims through SSA’s administrative procedures.

In her declaration to support the motion to dismiss, SSA’s Honolulu District manager Christina Seu acknowledged that there had been a delay owing to an administrative error.

Sheu affirmed that on March 21, 2016, Treasury direct-deposited $4,906.30 in retroactive retirement insurance benefits into Angello’s savings account.

Sheu further affirmed that other requests for administrative reconsideration by Angello had been consolidated and that a decision was pending.

In response to the motion to dismiss, Angello filed a motion for the court’s intervention and a motion to stay proceedings.

Angello declared a “partial victory” and asserted a right to mandamus relief from SSA’s delays.

The U.S. government replied that mandatory relief is unavailable because the timing of administrative adjudication of SSA claims is discretionary and the setting of deadlines had been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In granting the motion to dismiss, Manglona said in the course of oral argument by the parties last June 16, it became clear that Angello’s administrative remedies have not been exhausted and that under the law, the court lacks jurisdiction to review SSA’s nonfinal decisions.

Manglona said on the record, the assistant U.S. attorney encouraged Angello to remain in contact with her office and stated her willingness to serve as a liaison on the progress of his administrative case.

Manglona said that last June 23, the U.S. government filed a copy of SSA’s notice for reconsideration of Angello’s claim for benefits.

The judge said that in the notice, dated June 16, 2016, the agency affirmed that Angello was already receiving the highest benefit possible, and informed him that if he disagrees with the decision, he has 60 days in which to request a hearing before an administrative law judge.

Last June 30, Angello submitted such a request to SSA.

Last Sept. 9, Angello filed a copy of a letter dated Aug. 30 which he had received from the Hearing Office Director of the SSA’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Honolulu.

The form letter explains the hearing process in considerable detail.

In the request for judicial notice, Angello complains that it took the agency two months to tell him it may take several more months before he gets a hearing.