Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

R.D. v. Saul

United States District Court, D. Kansas

December 18, 2019

R.D., 1 Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          SAM A. CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE.

         This action seeks review of the defendant Social Security Commissioner's ("Commissioner's") final decision that denied reconsideration of the amount of the assessed overpayment and that denied the request for waiver of the overpayment. Because the procedural history to this case is more involved than most, the court offers the following as background.

         In 1995, the plaintiff was found disabled due to vision problems, carpal tunnel, knee and back pain, and mental issues related to dealing with the pain. There have been times when the plaintiff's monthly benefits stopped because her earnings from part-time work exceeded the guideline for substantial gainful activity. The plaintiff wants the court to review the Commissioner's determinations as to when payments should have been stopped, how much was overpaid to her, and what disqualifies her from a waiver of any overpayment. The administrative record on appeal includes a November 2017 Summary of Social Security Payments and Benefits 1 The use of initials is to preserve privacy interests. for the plaintiff. It shows the following:

--benefits due from July 1994 through September 2008
--no benefits due because of work from October 2008 through April 2010
--benefits due for May and June 2010
--no benefits due because of work for July and August 2010
--benefits due for September 2010 --no benefits due because of work for October 2010
--benefits due from November 2010 through November 2011
--no benefits due to no disability from December 2011 through October 2015
--benefits due from November 2015 through January 2016
--no benefits due to work from February 2016 through August 2016
--benefits due from September 2016 through the date of the report

ECF #9, pp. 146-151. This summary evidences the Commissioner's repeated actions to address when plaintiff's part-time wages exceeded the monthly guidelines for substantial gainful activity. This case is also complicated by the plaintiff's inconsistent and incomplete efforts at challenging the Commissioner's different determinations of overpayment.

         To understand the administrative proceedings being challenged, the court goes back to the Commissioner's letter dated March 4, 2015, which states that the plaintiff's work records were under review to determine her eligibility for disability payments from November 2011 through March 2015, and that no decision had been made so the plaintiff could submit information for consideration. Id. at 110. This letter identified the work records under review as showing her employment with Wal-Mart from October 2007 through December of 2014. Id. at 111. Attached to the letter is also a Statement of “Monthly Work and Earnings-Extended Period of Eligibility” that reflects the plaintiff's monthly earnings in November of 2011 were $1027 when the monthly guideline for substantial gainful activity was $1000. Id. at 118.

         The Commissioner followed this with a letter of decision dated March 25, 2015, that stated:

We restarted your Social Security disability payments during your extended period of eligibility because you were no longer doing substantial work. However, because you have once again performed substantial gainful work, we have decided that you are not entitled to payments beginning November 2011.

Id. at 105. The letter explained that work usually will be found, “substantial if gross monthly earnings average more than ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.