Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08117/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gregory F Osterloh, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-16-08117-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Government’s motion to dismiss this case because 

Plaintiff did not timely file a notice of appeal. Doc. 10. Specifically, the Government 

argues that Plaintiff’s appeal is 7 days late. Doc. 10 at 2. Plaintiff concedes that his 

appeal is untimely, but asks the Court to allow it anyway. The Government did not reply 

to Plaintiff’s response. 

 In its motion, the Government notes that late notices of appeal are subject to 

equitable tolling. Specifically, 

If the Commissioner does not waive the statute of limitations, a federal 

court may equitably toll the limitations period “where the equities in favor 

of tolling the limitations period are so great that deference to the agency’s 

judgment is inappropriate.” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 480 

(1986) (citation omitted). Equitable tolling of this statute of limitations 

should not apply unless there is wrongful conduct by a defendant or 

circumstances beyond a claimant’s control that make it impossible to timely 

file. Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Doc. 10 at 4. 

Case 3:16-cv-08117-JAT Document 13 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 In his response to the Government’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff claims he counted 

business days, not calendar days, and that is why his appeal is late. Doc. 11. Such a 

mistake does not meet the test to qualify for equitable tolling. 

 Plaintiff also filed a supplemental response in which he claims he has mental 

problems. Doc. 12. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges, “I suffer from Schizophrenia which 

affects my daily life and there are time[s] which escape me and times that are lost.” Doc. 

12. 

 Generally, unsubstantiated claims of mental impairment do not qualify for 

equitable tolling. However, with its motion to dismiss, the Government attached a copy 

of the ALJ’s decision in this case. In that decision, the ALJ recounts that Plaintiff has 

some history of mental illness although the ALJ concludes that such condition is not 

disabling. Doc. 10-1 at 14. Because there is some basis in the record to support 

Plaintiff’s claim of psychiatric treatment, the Court will liberally construe “circumstances 

beyond claimant’s control” and grant equitable tolling. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government shall file the answer within 

60 days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once the Government files the answer, all 

other deadlines shall follow the scheduling order (Doc. 4). 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2017. 

Case 3:16-cv-08117-JAT Document 13 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2