Carlos Kosloff v. Commissioner of Social Security , 581 F. App'x 811 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-10923 Date Filed: 10/03/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10923
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-62233-WJZ
CARLOS KOSLOFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 3, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10923 Date Filed: 10/03/2014 Page: 2 of 5
Carlos Kosloff appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Social
Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial, in part, of his request that recovery of a
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) payment be waived.1 He argues that there
was no overpayment, because the money in his bank account that put him above
the SSI eligibility resource threshold came from a home equity line of credit
(“HELOC”), which should not have been counted as a resource because it was
actually a liability and because doing so ran counter to the Social Security Act’s
home exclusion rule.
On judicial review, decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence and if the
correct legal standard was applied. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Kelley v.
Apfel, 185 F.3d 1211, 1213 (11th Cir. 1999). We review the Commissioner’s
factual findings with deference and legal conclusions with close scrutiny. Doughty
v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Id. When the Appeals Council denies review, we review the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision as the Commissioner’s final
decision. Id. We do not address arguments not raised before the district court.
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 2004).
1
Plaintiff-Appellant Carlos Kosloff’s motion to file a reply brief out of time is
GRANTED.
2
Case: 14-10923 Date Filed: 10/03/2014 Page: 3 of 5
In order to be eligible for SSI, an individual living with a spouse must not
have resources of more than $3,000. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205(b), (c). “Resources”
are defined as “cash or other liquid assets or any real or personal property that an
individual (or spouse, if any) owns and could convert to cash to be used for his or
her support and maintenance.” Id. § 416.1201(a). Liquid resources are defined as
“cash or other property which can be converted to cash within 20 days,” such as
“financial institution accounts.” Id. § 416.1201(b). Funds held in a financial
institution account are an individual’s resource if the individual owns the account
and can use the funds for his or her support and maintenance. Id. § 416.1208(a).
An individual’s principal place of residence and one automobile used for
transportation are not counted as resources. Id. §§ 416.1210(a), (c), 416.1212(a).
The proceeds of a loan do not count as income for the purposes of SSI
eligibility. Id. § 416.1103(f). However, according to the SSA’s internal-guidance
manual, Programs Operations Manual System (“POMS”), cash provided by a
lender upon a borrower’s promise to repay in full counts as the borrower’s resource
if retained in the month following the month of receipt. POMS SI
01120.220(B)(1), (C)(1)(a). We have stated that “[w]hile the POMS does not have
the force of law, it can be persuasive.” Stroup v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1258, 1262
(11th Cir. 2003).
3
Case: 14-10923 Date Filed: 10/03/2014 Page: 4 of 5
The Commissioner shall recover overpayments to an individual whenever
the Commissioner finds that more or less than the correct amount of benefits has
been paid. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(1)(A). Recovery of an overpayment may be
waived if a claimant is without fault and recovery would defeat the purpose of
Title XVI, would be against equity or good conscience, or would impede efficient
or effective administration of Title XVI due to the small amount involved.
20 C.F.R. § 416.550. The claimant has the burden of establishing that he is
without fault for the overpayment. Viehman v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 223, 227 (11th
Cir. 1982). “Although the finding depends on all of the circumstances in the
particular case, an individual will be found to have been at fault in connection with
an overpayment when an incorrect payment resulted from . . . failure to furnish
information which the individual knew or should have known was material.”
20 C.F.R. § 416.552(a).
Here, the funds in Kosloff’s financial institution accounts were properly
counted as resources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1201(a), (b). Kosloff himself described his
HELOC as a loan, and loan proceeds are counted as a resource the month after
their receipt. POMS SI 01120.220(C)(1)(a). Kosloff’s argument that equity in a
home is not a countable resource if the home is the individual’s principal residence
fails because his equity was not actually counted as a resource—the proceeds of a
line of credit secured by that equity were. Additionally, substantial evidence
4
Case: 14-10923 Date Filed: 10/03/2014 Page: 5 of 5
supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Kosloff was overpaid $1,178.38 in SSI benefits
from March to September 2010, Kelley, 185 F.3d at 1213, and Kosloff did not
argue below that he was not at fault as to the overpayments, so we need not address
that issue, Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1161.
After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we
affirm for the foregoing reasons.
AFFIRMED.
5