Padro v. Astrue, Commissioner of Social
Security, Civ. No. 11-1788 (E.D.N.Y.) was a class action brought by
claimants whose applications for disability benefits from Social Security were
denied by one of five Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) at the Queens Office
of Disability Adjudication and Review: ALJ Michael D. “Manuel” Cofresi,
Seymour Fier, Marilyn P. Hoppenfeld, Hazel C. Strauss, and Hearing Office Chief
David Z. Nisnewitz (the “Queens Five”). The Court approved the settlement
agreement in that action on October 18, 2013.
Security, Civ. No. 11-1788 (E.D.N.Y.) was a class action brought by
claimants whose applications for disability benefits from Social Security were
denied by one of five Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) at the Queens Office
of Disability Adjudication and Review: ALJ Michael D. “Manuel” Cofresi,
Seymour Fier, Marilyn P. Hoppenfeld, Hazel C. Strauss, and Hearing Office Chief
David Z. Nisnewitz (the “Queens Five”). The Court approved the settlement
agreement in that action on October 18, 2013.
Under the terms of the settlement,
a class member whose claim for disability benefits was denied from January 1,
2008 through October 18, 2013 is entitled to a new hearing before an ALJ other
than a Queens Five ALJ. I represent a claimant, whose Social Security
Disability application was denied by ALJ Hoppenfeld on March 15, 2012.
The Appeals Council remanded the matter back to ALJ Hoppenfeld on July
18, 2013.
ALJ Hoppenfeld refused to recuse herself.
Her assistant confirmed that my client’s case would not been reassigned
to a non-Queens Five ALJ. The
entire purpose of the Padro
settlement agreement was to prevent a claimant from having to be subjected to a
second hearing before a Queens Five ALJ, which includes Hoppenfeld. Since
I assumed there must be a mistake, I contacted Susan L. Beller, who
supposedly is responsible for overseeing Padro
claims.
Beller stated that my
client’s hearing would not be reassigned because he was not eligible according
to the HALLEX. Beller failed to
identify the specific HALLEX number that she claimed applied, but quoted the
following:
client’s hearing would not be reassigned because he was not eligible according
to the HALLEX. Beller failed to
identify the specific HALLEX number that she claimed applied, but quoted the
following:
1. Retrospective Relief
A class
member eligible for retrospective relief is a claimant who received an
unfavorable or partially favorable decision on a disability claim – including
age 18 disability redeterminations and Continuing Disability Reviews (CDR) –
from any of the five named ALJs between January 1, 2008 and October 18, 2013,
with certain exceptions described below.
A claimant is not eligible for retrospective relief if:
· A United States District Court affirmed the ALJ decision, and the claimant
did not have a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment pending as of the
date the settlement becomes effective; or
· A United States District Court remanded the claim in an order that expressly
declined to reassign the remanded claim to a different ALJ, and the claimant
did not have a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment pending as of the
date the settlement becomes effective; or
· the claimant was already found eligible for all benefits for which he or she
could be eligible based on the claim decided by one of the named ALJs; or
· the claimant already received a new decision on his or her claim by an ALJ
who is not a named ALJ; or
· the claim decided by a named ALJ is pending with a different ALJ (other than
one of the ALJs named above) at the time the claimant requests relief.
A class
member eligible for retrospective relief is a claimant who received an
unfavorable or partially favorable decision on a disability claim – including
age 18 disability redeterminations and Continuing Disability Reviews (CDR) –
from any of the five named ALJs between January 1, 2008 and October 18, 2013,
with certain exceptions described below.
A claimant is not eligible for retrospective relief if:
· A United States District Court affirmed the ALJ decision, and the claimant
did not have a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment pending as of the
date the settlement becomes effective; or
· A United States District Court remanded the claim in an order that expressly
declined to reassign the remanded claim to a different ALJ, and the claimant
did not have a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment pending as of the
date the settlement becomes effective; or
· the claimant was already found eligible for all benefits for which he or she
could be eligible based on the claim decided by one of the named ALJs; or
· the claimant already received a new decision on his or her claim by an ALJ
who is not a named ALJ; or
· the claim decided by a named ALJ is pending with a different ALJ (other than
one of the ALJs named above) at the time the claimant requests relief.
Beller’s response proves
that the Queens hearing office is treating the Padro settlement agreement as a joke.
that the Queens hearing office is treating the Padro settlement agreement as a joke.
Beller
conspicuously failed to say which of the five exceptions applied because she
knows that none of them do. Beller knows that this case was never in
federal court so the first two exceptions cannot possibly apply. Beller
knows that the claimant’s benefits have not been approved so the third
exception cannot possibly apply. Beller knows that no ALJ has heard the
case other than Hoppenfeld so the fourth exception cannot possibly apply.
Beller knows that the claim is pending with Hoppenfeld so the fifth and
final exception cannot possibly apply.
Perhaps more importantly, the relevant source is the settlement
agreement, not the HALLEX. Section IIIA1(a)-(d) of the settlement
agreement covers exceptions to its application, but Beller failed to say which
supposedly applies to the claimant. Section
IIIA2 of the settlement agreement states in relevant part: “If a claim to be
readjudicated has been remanded by the Appeals Council and is pending before a
Named ALJ at the time of the Class member’s request for readjudication, the
claim shall be reassigned.” That is exactly my client’s situation.
The first sentence of the letter I emailed Beller stated: “I represent
[claimant], whose Social Security Disability application was denied by
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Hoppenfeld on March 15, 2012. The
Appeals Council remanded the matter back to ALJ Hoppenfeld on July 18, 2013.“
It is patently obvious that the Queens hearing office continues to
operate in bad faith. I have also
sought help from the New York Regional hearing office and the Appeals Council,
but my client’s matter has not been reassigned, which raises the question whether any
part of the Agency is taking the Padro
settlement agreement seriously.
conspicuously failed to say which of the five exceptions applied because she
knows that none of them do. Beller knows that this case was never in
federal court so the first two exceptions cannot possibly apply. Beller
knows that the claimant’s benefits have not been approved so the third
exception cannot possibly apply. Beller knows that no ALJ has heard the
case other than Hoppenfeld so the fourth exception cannot possibly apply.
Beller knows that the claim is pending with Hoppenfeld so the fifth and
final exception cannot possibly apply.
Perhaps more importantly, the relevant source is the settlement
agreement, not the HALLEX. Section IIIA1(a)-(d) of the settlement
agreement covers exceptions to its application, but Beller failed to say which
supposedly applies to the claimant. Section
IIIA2 of the settlement agreement states in relevant part: “If a claim to be
readjudicated has been remanded by the Appeals Council and is pending before a
Named ALJ at the time of the Class member’s request for readjudication, the
claim shall be reassigned.” That is exactly my client’s situation.
The first sentence of the letter I emailed Beller stated: “I represent
[claimant], whose Social Security Disability application was denied by
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Hoppenfeld on March 15, 2012. The
Appeals Council remanded the matter back to ALJ Hoppenfeld on July 18, 2013.“
It is patently obvious that the Queens hearing office continues to
operate in bad faith. I have also
sought help from the New York Regional hearing office and the Appeals Council,
but my client’s matter has not been reassigned, which raises the question whether any
part of the Agency is taking the Padro
settlement agreement seriously.
Please note that claimants will not be entitled to
reassignment unless they affirmatively request it within 60 days of receiving
the final Padro notice. I do not understand why that was
requirement allowed in the settlement agreement because why would anyone choose to have a
second hearing with a Queens Five ALJ?
It seems that Social Security is hoping that claimants either will not
receive their Padro notice, or will not understand that they need to insist
that a non-Queens Five ALJ hear their new hearing.
reassignment unless they affirmatively request it within 60 days of receiving
the final Padro notice. I do not understand why that was
requirement allowed in the settlement agreement because why would anyone choose to have a
second hearing with a Queens Five ALJ?
It seems that Social Security is hoping that claimants either will not
receive their Padro notice, or will not understand that they need to insist
that a non-Queens Five ALJ hear their new hearing.