Donnie Bass v. Carolyn Colvin , 650 F. App'x 336 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY 16 2016
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DONNIE LEE BASS,                                 No. 15-35287
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02025-RSL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
    Commissioner, Social Security
    Administration,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 10, 2016**
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Donnie Bass appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. The district court
    affirmed the Commissioner’s decision requiring Bass to repay $8,845.19 in
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    overpaid disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We
    have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse in part and affirm in part.
    1. We reverse the district court’s determination that the ALJ did not err in
    holding that Bass was not entitled to a waiver of overpayment. A claimant is
    entitled to a waiver of overpayment if (1) a claimant is without fault in receiving
    the overpayment and (2) recovery would defeat the purposes of the Act or be
    contrary to equity and good conscience. 42 U.S.C. § 404(b).
    The two reasons the ALJ provided do not constitute substantial evidence for
    its finding that Bass could have known he was being overpaid and was therefore at
    fault in incurring the overpayments because they do not bear on what a person in
    Bass’s circumstances would reasonably have known. See Harrison v. Heckler, 
    746 F.2d 480
    , 482 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that the fault determination is “highly
    subjective”). First, that Bass was sent a routine booklet on reporting requirements
    when he initially received his award cannot, on its own, be sufficient. This would
    render a waiver of overpayment virtually unobtainable. Second, the routine notice
    that Bass received in 1999 (which the government notes cannot be located in the
    record) is likewise insufficient, as it was received well before the overpayments at
    issue and thus has little bearing on Bass’s awareness at the time of the
    overpayments.
    2
    Further, recovery of payment from Bass would have also defeated the
    purposes of the Act and been contrary to equity and good conscience, as there is
    evidence that Bass needed the income for ordinary living expenses. See 42 U.S.C.
    § 404(b).
    Accordingly, we hold that Bass was entitled to a waiver of overpayment.
    2. We affirm the district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to
    consider Bass’s claims for damages and medical expenses. See 42 U.S.C.
    §§ 405(g),(h) (the Social Security Act allows only for judicial review of a final
    decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and precludes any other action to
    recover).
    REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.
    Appellee shall bear costs on appeal.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-35287

Citation Numbers: 650 F. App'x 336

Judges: Leavy, Owens, Pregerson

Filed Date: 5/16/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024