Opinion
1:19-cv-09980-VSB-GRJ
01-10-2022
ALISSA ROSENBERG-TORRES, on behalf of a minor, J.E.T., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
GARY R. JONES, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Alissa Rosenberg-Torres commenced this action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to grant surviving parent benefits to Maria T. Rueda de Torres, the mother of Luis Eduardo Torres, the deceased wage earner, which decision reduced the amount of benefits that otherwise would be payable to Plaintiff and JET, her son.
This case was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on December 29, 2021. Presently pending is a motion by the Commissioner for Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for Joinder of Necessary Parties under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 34). For the following reasons, the motion for joinder should be granted and the motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied without prejudice or deferred pending joinder.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Administrative Proceedings
The administrative proceedings span two decades and involve numerous filings, challenges, and administrative decisions. Review is complicated by the absence of several elements of the record, including hearing transcripts and exhibits. The critical components of the administrative history, however, are established and undisputed.
Luis Eduardo Torres was a victim of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. (T at 76). Plaintiff is Mr. Torres's widow. She applied for, and was awarded, survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. (T at 78). JET, one of Mr. Torres's children, was also awarded benefits. (T at 78).
Citations to “T” refer to the administrative record transcript at Docket No. 25 and 33.
JET was born on October 31, 2001, after his father perished in the 9/11 attacks. (T at 87). The instant case was filed on October 24, 2019, just prior to JET's 18th birthday.
Maria Rueda de Torres, Mr. Torres's mother, applied and was awarded survivor's benefits as the dependent parent of a deceased wage earner. (T at 76-80). Plaintiff was notified that her benefits, as well as JET's benefits, would be reduced under the “family maximum rule” because of the award to Ms. Rueda de Torres. (T at 76, 183-85). Plaintiff challenged the award of benefits to Ms. Rueda de Torres through a labyrinth of administrative proceedings. (T at 76-77).
In November of 2013, ALJ Andrew Weiss issued a decision finding that Ms. Rueda de Torres was entitled to surviving parent's benefits. (T at 303-307). In May of 2016, the Social Security Appeals Council vacated ALJ Weiss's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. (T at 77).
B. ALJ's Decision
On remand from the Appeals Council, the matter was assigned to ALJ Michael Friedman. On June 27, 2018, ALJ Friedman held an administrative hearing and received testimony from Plaintiff, Ms. Rueda de Torres, Monica Torres (Ms. Rueda de Torres's daughter), and Lucelly Zavalla (the mother of two children by Mr. Torres). (T at 77).
On September 8, 2018, ALJ Friedman issued a decision granting Ms. Rueda de Torres's application for benefits. (T at 73-83). He found that Ms. Rueda de Torres met the age requirements for surviving parent's benefits (i.e., she was at least 62 years old), was the natural parent of the deceased wage earner (Mr. Torres), had not married since the wage earner's death, and lived alone during the relevant time period. (T at 81).
ALJ Friedman found that Ms. Rueda de Torres initially applied for benefits on September 9, 2009, which acted as a protective filing date, and had established “good cause” for extending time to submit evidence supporting her application. (T at 81). The ALJ further determined that Mr. Torres provided “one-half support” to his mother during the 12-month period prior to his death (i.e., he made regular contributions for her ordinary living costs, which contributions equaled or exceeded one-half of those costs, and Ms. Rueda de Torres's income from sources other than Mr. Torres were one-half or less of her ordinary living costs). (T at 81). Consequently, the ALJ found that Ms. Rueda de Torres was entitled to surviving parent's benefits. (T at 82).
On August 29, 2019, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making ALJ Friedman's decision the Commissioner's final decision. (T at 167-70).
C. Procedural History
Plaintiff commenced this action pro se by filing a Complaint on October 24, 2019. (Docket No. 2). On June 11, 2021, the Commissioner filed a motion for joinder of necessary parties and for judgment on the pleadings under Rules 19 (a) and 12 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively. (Docket No. 34.) The Commissioner submitted a memorandum of law in support of the motion. (Docket No. 35). On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law, with accompanying exhibits, along with a declaration in opposition to the motion. (Docket No. 38, 39.) On September 7, 2021, the Commissioner submitted a reply memorandum of law in further support of the motion. (Docket No. 43.) The matter was reassigned to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on December 29, 2021.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Joinder of Parties
Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if certain conditions are satisfied. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 (a). Specifically, a party must be joined if:
(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring
double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.Fed R. Civ. P. 19 (a)(1)(A) & (B).
A court presented with a request for joinder must first “determine whether an absent party belongs in the suit, i.e., whether the party qualifies as a ‘necessary' party under Rule 19(a).” Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Kearney, 212 F.3d 721, 724 (2d Cir. 2000)(citing Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 124, 19 L.Ed.2d 936, 88 S.Ct. 733 (1968) (“Persons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties . . . are commonly termed necessary parties ....”)(quoting Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 139, 15 L.Ed. 158 (1854)).
If the absent party has a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation, the court considers whether the missing party's interests have been, or can be, “adequately represented” by the parties in the pending action. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Mason, Perrin & Kanovsky, 709 F.Supp. 411, 414-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
B. Remand to the Commissioner of Social Security
A court reviewing a Social Security benefits determination is granted the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 205(g).
If “the record provides persuasive proof of disability and a remand for further evidentiary proceedings would serve no purpose,” the appropriate remedy is to remand solely “for calculation and payment of benefits.” Parker v. Harris, 626 F.2d 225, 235 (2d Cir. 1980).
If, however, there is reason to believe “a more complete record might support the Commissioner's decision,” the court should remand for further proceedings. See Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir. 1999).
III. DISCUSSION
The Commissioner requests joinder of two parties: JET and Ms. Rueda de Torres. In addition, the Commissioner requests a judgment remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings.
A. Joinder of JET
JET was a minor when this case was filed, but thereafter attained the age of 18. (Docket No. 38, at p. 7). Although this matter has been captioned as being brought by Plaintiff on behalf of JET, the Complaint shows that Plaintiff brought this action both on her own behalf and in her capacity as JET's mother. Plaintiff has her own interest in the matter because the Commissioner's award of benefits to Ms. Rueda de Torres impacts the benefits she received as Mr. Torres's widow, as well as the benefits she received on behalf of JET. (Docket No. 2). Plaintiff submitted a letter request requesting the Court to clarify the caption accordingly. (Docket No. 37). It is recommended that the Court should grant Plaintiff's request for correction of the caption and that Plaintiff be considered a party in her own right in this action.
With respect to the Commissioner's request that JET be joined and effectively substituted in place of Plaintiff with respect to the portion of the Complaint that asserted his rights, it is recommended that this request be granted. See Elliott v. Ross, No. 1:17-cv-01214-LJO-SAB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57571, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019)(“Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address this situation, courts have applied Rule 25, Rule 17, and Rule 19 to allow for the substitution of a minor that becomes an adult during the pendency of an action.”)(collecting cases).
B. Joinder of Ms. Rueda de Torres
The Commissioner asserts, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that Ms. Rueda de Torres is subject to service of process. Because this action concerns claims arising under federal law (namely, the Social Security Act), joinder of Ms. Rueda de Torres will not deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the threshold requirements of Rule 19 (a) have been met.
The Commissioner contends that the provisions of Rule 19 (a)(1)(A)& (B) are satisfied and require that Ms. Rueda de Torres be joined as a party. Plaintiff opposes joinder and advances factual arguments attacking Ms. Rueda de Torres's credibility, but does not provide any legal arguments connected to the applicable joinder standard. As the party seeking joinder, the Commissioner bears the burden of establishing the requisite elements. See Holland v. Fahnestock & Co., Inc., 210 F.R.D. 487, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
To determine whether Ms. Rueda de Torres is a necessary party, this Court must “consider whether complete relief can be accorded among existing parties in her absence, ... and whether the proceeding could ‘impair or impede' [her] interests or leave an existing party subject to a ‘substantial risk' of inconsistent obligations.” Baldwin v. Interscope Records, Inc., No. 19-cv-8923 (JGK), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41733, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2021)(internal citations omitted).
For the following reasons, this Court finds that joinder of Ms. Rueda de Torres is necessary. The Court, therefore, recommends that this portion of the Commissioner's motion be granted.
First, complete relief cannot be granted to Plaintiff, JET, or the Commissioner without resolving the question of whether Ms. Rueda de Torres should have been awarded benefits. Indeed, the case turns on that question. The injuries claimed by Plaintiff and JET are based on a reduction in their benefits under the “family maximum rule,” which reduction occurred because Ms. Rueda de Torres was found to be eligible for benefits.
The family maximum rule "limits the total benefits payable on [a wage earner's] record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.304(d). The regulation cautions a claimant that “your benefits may be reduced to keep total benefits payable to the insured's family within these limits." Id.; see also Tarantino v. Apfel, No. 97-C-0659, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24995, at *7 (E.D. Wis. May 13, 1998).
Second, this proceeding will “impair or impede” Ms. Rueda de Torres's legally cognizable interest. Neither the Commissioner nor Plaintiff defends the ALJ's decision to award Ms. Rueda de Torres benefits. Plaintiff argues that the record is sufficient to justify judicial reversal of the award (Docket No. 38, at p. 8-13). The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and requests remand for further administrative proceedings. (Docket No. 35, p. 11-12). Under the circumstances, an order granting either of the requested remedies will impair or impede Ms. Rueda de Torres's interest either by reversing the Commissioner's decision to award her benefits outright or subjecting her to further administrative proceedings to defend the award.
Third, joinder is required because the Commissioner will, in the absence of Ms. Rueda de Torres, be “subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 (a)(1)(B)(ii).
Although not binding, the decision in Taylor v. Chater, 907 F.Supp. 306 (N.D. Ind. 1995) is instructive and persuasive. In that case, the plaintiff ex-wife of the deceased wage earner challenged an award of benefits to the wage earner's minor stepchildren. Id. at 307. The court found the mother of the minor stepchildren to be a necessary party, explaining that “a decision adverse to the Commissioner, rendered without [the mother of the stepchildren] as a party, might effectively subject the SSA to double and inconsistent obligations: the stepchildren would not be bound by the decision of the court and thus would be entitled to challenge the loss of benefits.” Id. at 309. This, in turn, could require the Commissioner “to pay benefits both to the stepchildren (in their proportional amount) and to the natural children--as if the stepchildren were not entitled to benefits” Id. This scenario would be unfairly prejudicial because the Commissioner would be compelled to pay benefits exceeding those established under the “family maximum rule.” Id.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the Commissioner has satisfied the requirements for joinder under Rule 19 (a)(1) with respect to Ms. Rueda de Torres and recommends that this portion of the Commissioner's motion be granted.
C. Remand
The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ's decision was based on an incomplete, underdeveloped record and requests a remand for further administrative proceedings to complete the record and conduct a proper review. (Docket No. 35, at p. 11-12).
Plaintiff opposes remand and outlines her extended and extensive efforts to obtain relief from the Social Security Administration, which include requests to waive recovery of the alleged overpayment of benefits that appear to remain pending at the administrative level. In addition, Plaintiff argues that the reduction of benefits was particularly prejudicial because the award she received from the 9/11 Victims' Compensation Fund did not account for the reduction in benefits occasioned by the subsequent award of benefits to Ms. Rueda de Torres.
As a result of the award of benefits to Ms. Rueda de Torres, the Social Security Administration determined that it had overpaid benefits to Plaintiff and JET and has demanded a return of the overpaid funds. (T at 100-19, 190-92, 206-08, 226-29).
As discussed above, an adjudication on the merits of the parties' arguments will necessarily impair or impede the rights of Ms. Rueda de Torres, either by reversing the award of benefits or by subjecting her to further administrative proceedings. An adjudication of the merits prior to joinder of Ms. Rueda de Torres would thus be inappropriate. The interests of Ms. Rueda de Torres are not “adequately represented by the Commissioner,” Taylor, 907 F.Supp. at 309, and are opposed to the interests of Plaintiff and JET. As such, it is recommended that the portion of the Commissioner's motion seeking remand either be denied without prejudice or reserved pending Ms. Rueda de Torres being joined and given an opportunity to present such arguments as she may have in support of the Commissioner's award of benefits.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the portion of the Commissioner's motion (Docket No. 34) seeking joinder of JET and Maria Rueda de Torres be GRANTED and that the portion of the Commissioner's motion seeking remand for further administrative proceedings either be DENIED without prejudice or reserved pending joinder and the joined parties, including, in particular, Ms. Rueda de Torres, are afforded an opportunity to respond to the requested relief.
PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (b), (d). A party may respond to any objections within 14 days after being served. Any objections and responses shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Any request for an extension of time to file objections or responses must be directed to the District Judge. If a party fails to file timely objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any objections to this Report and Recommendation on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010).