NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-1890

___________

JOHN M. TOTH,

 Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-15-cv-03107)

District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 4, 2017

Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 5, 2017)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

John Toth appeals the District Court’s order remanding his case to the 

Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Court’s order.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Toth’s claims are well known 

to the parties, set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and need 

not be discussed at length. Briefly, Toth filed an application for Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) benefits with the Social Security Administration (SSA). An Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ), Judge Fitzpatrick, concluded that Toth met the disability requirements, 

but a letter from the SSA subsequently informed Toth that he did not meet the financial 

eligibility requirements for SSI benefits. The denial was due to his income and because 

he failed to apply for Social Security retirement benefits for which he was eligible. Toth 

then filed a “Motion to Enforce the Judgment,” which the SSA treated as a motion for 

reconsideration and denied. Toth appealed the determination within the agency. After 

holding a hearing, another ALJ, Judge Lyons, upheld the SSA’s denial. Toth then filed a 

complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

seeking judicial review of Judge Lyons’ decision. He also sought to bring a claim under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the SSA.

A Magistrate Judge recommended that the matter be remanded to the SSA, having 

concluded that the record lacked substantial evidence to support a determination that Toth 

was financially ineligible for SSI benefits. While the Magistrate Judge agreed with the 

SSA that Toth needed to apply for other benefits before he would be eligible for SSI, he 

determined that Toth was not given the prerequisite notice of his eligibility for retirement 
3

benefits until 2013.1 The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Toth’s claims under 

the FTCA be dismissed. Toth filed objections. The District Court overruled Toth’s 

objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and remanded the matter to the 

Commissioner of Social Security for further review. Toth filed a timely notice of appeal.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of questions of law is plenary. 

Sanfilippo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d 391, 393 (3d Cir. 2003).

Toth argues that the District Court failed to consider relevant, material, and crucial 

facts regarding the treatment of his “Motion to Enforce the Judgment.” He notes that 

after the SSA denied his application for benefits based on non-disability grounds, he 

mailed his “Motion to Enforce the Judgment” to ALJ Fitzpatrick. Toth appears to believe 

that the SSA must have opened and redirected his mail to ALJ Fitzpatrick, since the SSA 

treated the filing as a motion for reconsideration and denied it. The SSA purportedly did 

this to reopen ALJ Fitzpatrick’s “final decision” that Toth was eligible for benefits. 

However, because Toth’s “Motion to Enforce the Judgment” challenged the SSA’s denial 

of his application for SSI, the SSA logically treated it as a motion for reconsideration. 

Toth was not prejudiced by the SSA’s recharacterization of his motion.

Moreover, there was no “judgment” for ALJ Fitzpatrick to “enforce.” Judge 

Fitzpatrick’s determination that Toth was disabled has not been challenged or reopened, 

although his decision did not entitle Toth to SSI benefits. Indeed, Judge Fitzpatrick noted 

 

1 As discussed below, before being eligible for SSI, a claimant must apply for other 

benefits if the SSA gives him notice he is likely eligible. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(2).
4

in a letter to Toth that “[a]nother office will process my decision and decide if you meet 

the non-disability requirements for [SSI] payments.” A.R. at 19. The determination that 

Toth met the disability requirements for SSI benefits did not exempt him from needing to 

meet any other requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 1381a (disabled individuals who are 

determined to be financially eligible are to be paid benefits).

 Toth also challenges the SSA’s determination that he was ineligible for SSI 

benefits because he did not file for retirement benefits for which he was eligible. He 

contends that he had a personal right to his retirement benefits and could choose to retire 

when he wanted to. It appears that Toth did not want to file for his retirement benefits 

before his full retirement age, in order to maximize his benefits. However, the SSA’s 

ruling was correct. If the SSA gives a claimant notice that he is likely eligible for certain 

other benefits (specified by statute and regulation), the claimant must apply for those 

benefits before being eligible for SSI. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(2) (referencing benefits 

described in 42 U.S.C. § 1382a(b)); 20 C.F.R. § 416.210. Moreover, Toth has no 

personal right to the Social Security retirement benefits. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1304, 

Congress reserves “[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal” the laws regarding these 

benefits. See also United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174 (1980) (no 

contractual right to social security benefits).

Finally, Toth argues that the SSA’s actions caused him injuries that are 

compensable under the FTCA. However, Toth may not bring an FTCA claim based on a 

denial of benefits. See 42 U.S.C. 405(h) (“No action against the United States, the 

Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought 
5

under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this 

subchapter.”); see also Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424 (1988) (no cause of 

action for money damages for unconstitutional conduct that leads to the wrongful denial 

of benefits). 

For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.