Mark D. Clarke United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Mark D. Clarke United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Kristine E. (“Plaintiff') seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. For the reasons provided below, the Commissioner's decision should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits was denied on June 16, 2021. Tr. 33. She filed a request for reconsideration, and her claim was denied again on October 14, 2021. Tr. 21-26. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel both assert that they did not receive notice of the denial upon reconsideration. Tr. 20. On January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs counsel determined that the Notice of Consideration had been filed. See Tr. 20. Ultimately Plaintiffs counsel filed a request for a hearing on January 11, 2022. Tr. 17-19. On January 31, 2022, the ALJ issued an Order of . Dismissal, finding that the request for a hearing was untimely and that Plaintiff did not establish good cause for missing the deadline of December 20, 2021. Tr. 16. Plaintiff sought review of the Notice of Dismissal, by the Appeals Council, which denied her request on November 8, 2022, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Tr. 1.
DISCUSSION
The issue before the Court is whether the ALJ reasonably found no good cause exists to excuse Plaintiffs untimely request for a hearing after denial of her claim upon reconsideration. For the reasons below, the Commissioner's decision should be remanded for further proceedings.
I. The ALJ did not give germane reasons for finding that no good cause existed for Plaintiff's untimely request for a hearing.
In determining whether good cause exists for missing a deadline, the Administration considers:
1. What circumstances kept you from making the request on time;
2. Whether our action misled you;
3. Whether you did not under the requirements of the Act resulting from amendments to the Act, other legislation, or court decisions; and
4. Whether you had any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language) which prevented you from filing a timely request or from understanding or knowing about the need to file a timely request for review.20 C.F.R. § 404.911(a). The regulations specifically provide good cause may exist when a claimant did not receive notice of a determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.911 (b)(7). Due process requires that a claimant receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard before his claim for disability benefits may be denied, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).
Plaintiff asserts, that neither she nor her counsel received the denial determination, which triggered the 60-day time limit. Tr. 20. The ALJ declined to find good cause existed for missing the deadline. Tr. 16. To support his conclusion, the ALJ explained that Plaintiff “was represented by a firm that specializes in disability law, and there is no evidence that the claimant was misled” Id. The ALJ asserted that Plaintiffs counsel “cannot argue that they did not understand the law, nor can they argue that they did not receive the Reconsideration Notice which was clearly mailed to them.” Id. The ALJ specifically expressed doubt regarding Plaintiffs assertion that neither the claimant nor the attorney received the Notice of Reconsideration that was dated October 14 2021. Id. Specifically, the ALJ supports this assertion by stating that “page [five] of the reconsideration determination shows that Kevin Kerr was courtesy copied on the determination letter, and page [two] of the 16969 submitted by [the firm] lists a mailing address identical to the address listed on the reconsideration determination.” Id. Plaintiff challenges these reasons as insufficient to show that Plaintiff and Plaintiff s counsel affirmatively did not receive the Reconsideration Notice.
The Court finds that the reasons the ALJ provided are insufficient. The ALJ's assertion that Plaintiffs counsel was courtesy copied on the determination letter, and that the address listed is correct, does not prove whether Plaintiffs counsel actually received the Reconsideration Notice. Additionally, Plaintiffs counsel explains that they have a system in place for receiving documents, which “includes date stamping any documents received and scanning a copy into the claimant's folder,” and the “original copy is then given to a legal assistant to docket the necessary dates.” Pl.'s Br. 4. Plaintiff further explained that this docketing is checked by an additional attorney to verify that the dates are correct and everything is handled properly. Id. This extensive mail system supports Plaintiffs contention that they did not receive the Notice of Reconsideration.
The court also recognizes that when Plaintiffs counsel determined that the Notice of Reconsideration had been filed on January 5, 2022, they acted quickly and submitted a statement of good cause for late filing the following day on January 6, 2022. Tr. 20. Plaintiffs counsel then requested a hearing less than a week later on January 11, 2022. Tr. 17.
The ALJ's dismissal for late filing was improper given that the ALJ's reasoning was incorrect regarding whether Plaintiffs good cause was valid. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.911(b)(7), 416.1411(b)(7).
RECOMMENDATION
: The ALJ failed to give germane reasons to find that good cause did not. exist for Plaintiffs untimely request for a hearing. Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner's decision should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen (14) days after the date this recommendation is filed. If objections are filed, any response is due within fourteen (14) days after the date the objections are filed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6. Parties are advised-that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive their right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Comments