2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-24-2006 

# B ie rley v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5486

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B ie rley v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 705. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/705NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 5486

________________ HAR RY L . BI E RL E Y, A ppel l ant v. J OA NN E B. BA RN HA RT, CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. Ci v . No. 0 5 - c v - 0 0 0 0 7 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y21, 2006 BEFORE: BA RRY , CH AG AR ES a n d CO W EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed: J ul y24, 2006 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM H arr yL . B i er l eyappea l s pr o s e an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t h e W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 I. I n J u l y 1 9 9 0 , B i e r l e y w a s c o n v i c t e d i n th e C o u r to f C o m m o n P l e a s o f

E r i e C o u n ty, P e n n sy lv a n ia, o f

a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt fo r a ttem p tin g to c a u se o r in ten tio n a llyo r k n o w in g ly causi ng bo dil yi njuryw i t h a d eadlyw eapo n. S ee 18 P a. C . S . A . § 2 70 2(a) (4) . T his off ense i s gr aded a s a fe l onyof the s econd de gr ee. See 18 Pa. C . S. A . § 2702( b) . B i er l eyw as ul t i m at el ys ent ence d t o a t erm of ei ghtt o for t y - ei ghtm onths of i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch he b e g a n s e rv in g o n A u g u s t 2 7 , 1 9 9 0 . Shor t l yaft ercompl et i ng hi s s ent ence i n A ugus t1994, B i er l eyfi l ed an a ppl i cat i on fordi s abi l i t yi ns ur ance benef i t s . I n Sept ember1996, an A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) det erm i ned thatB i er l eyw as di s abl ed and thathe w as ent i t l ed t o benef i t s as of A ugus t1993. D i s abi l i t ypaym ent s began i n O ct ober1996, and, i n M ar ch 1997, the Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on ( “SSA ”) r el eas ed pas tdue bene fi t s , i ncl udi ng benef i t s forthe p e ri o d d u ri n g w h ic h B ie rl e yw a s in c a rc e ra te d f o r t h e a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt c o n v ic tio n . B eca us e, how ever , benef i t s coul d notbe pai d foranym onth dur i ng anypartof w hi ch a be ne fi c i a r yi s i nc a r c e r a t e d f ora fe l on yc on vi c t i on , 42 U . S. C. § 4 02 ( x) ( 19 93 ) , the SSA n o tif ie d B ie rl e yth a t h e h a d b e e n o v e rp a id f o r t h e p e ri o d o f

A u g u s t 1 9 9 3 to A u g u s t 1 9 9 4 . A l l egi ng t hathi s i ncar cer at i on w as i l l egal , B i er l eyr eques t ed thatr ecove r yof the overpaym entbe w ai ved. A ft eruns ucce s s ful l ypur s ui ng hi s cl ai m befor e the SSA , B i er l ey request ed a h eari ng befo re an A L J. In D ecem ber 200 3, the A L J denied B i erl ey ’s request fora w ai ver , fi ndi ng t hathe had notdemonstr at ed thathi s convi ct i on had bee n over tur nedG ener al l y , w e w oul d exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe or dergr ant i ng the 1 C om m i s s i oner ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the per cei ved cons t i tut i onal cl ai m on t he bas i s of s over ei gn i m m uni t yand r es pondeats uper i or . See M C I T el ecomm . C orp. v. B el l A t l ant i cP en n sy lvan ia, 2 7 1 F . 3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); N am i v. Fa u v er, 82 F . 3 d 6 3 (3d C ir . (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 an d that h e w as a t fau ltfo r ke ep ing the e n ti re a m o u n t of p ast d u e b en ef

it s. T h e A L J’s d e c isio n b e c a m e th e f

in a l d e c isio n o f

th e C o m m iss io n e r w h e n th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il d e n i e d Bi e r l e y ’ s r e q u e s tf o rr e v i e w. I n J anuary2005, B i er l eyfi l ed a pr o s e ci vi l act i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s eeki ng j udi ci al r evi ew of the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. B i er l ey , ci t i ng var i ous cons t i tut i onal amendm ent s , al s o al l eged th a t th e C o m m iss io n e r u se d im p ro p e r c riter ia to d e ter m in e w h e th e r h e w a s e n tit led to b e n e f its. T h e C o m m iss io n e r so u g h t af f irm a n c e o f

th e d e c isio n b e lo w , an d m o v e d to di s m i s s B i er l ey ’ s per cei ved cons t i tut i onal cl ai m on t he bas i s of s over ei gn i m m uni t yand r es pondeats uper i or . O n N ovember14, 2005, the D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the R epor t s of a M a g is tr a te J u d g e , a n d g ra n te d th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s m o tio n s . B ie rl e ya p p e a le d . II. W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W i t h r es pectt o B i er l ey ’ s cl ai m forSoci al Secur i t ybenef i t s , ourr ol e i s i dent i cal t o t hatof t he D i s t r i ctC our t . W e r evi ew t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d de novo t o det erm i ne w hether t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on and w hetherthe C om m i s s i onerappl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d. See B urns v. B arnhar t , 312 F. 3d 113, 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 1996) . T he s ubs t ance of thi s cl ai m i s thatthe A L J ’ s “r evi ew w as notpr edi cat ed on p ro p e r c riter ia r e latin g to w h e th e r o r n o t th e c laim a n t w a s q u a lifie d f o r S o c ial S e c u rity benef i t s dur i ng t he t i m e per i od forw hi ch overpaym enti s cl ai m ed. ” The M agi s t r at e J udge t r eat ed thi s al l egat i on s epar at el yfr om B i er l ey ’ s cl ai m fordi s abi l i t ybenef i t s . B eca us e, how ever , B i er l ey ’ s ar gum entconce r ns the l egal s t andar ds us ed i n det erm i ni ng w hetherhe w as ent i t l ed to ben efi t s, w e con cl ud e t hat the clai m i s m ore properl ycon strued as a re q u e st f o r ju d icia l re v iew o f

a d e c isio n o f

th e C o m m iss io n e r u n d e r § 4 0 5 (g ). A s s u c h , it i s eval uat ed undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. W i t h r es pectt o t he mer i t s of B i er l ey ’ s cl ai m , w e hol d t hatt her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence thatthe A L J appl i ed the corr ect s ta tu te s a n d re g u la tio n s in e v a lu a tin g B ie rl e y ’s re q u e s t f o r a w a v ie r o f

th e o v e rp a ym e n t. 4 118 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; M acha di o v. A pfel , 276 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 2d C i r . 2002) . Subst ant i al evi dence “does notm ean a l ar ge orcons i der abl e amountof evi dence , butr athers uch re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a concl us i on. ” H ar t r anftv. A pfel , 181 F. 3d 358, 360 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , ci t i ng Pi er ce v. U n d e rw o o d , 4 8 7 U .S . 5 5 2 (1 9 8 8 ). III . A t th e tim e o f

B ier ley’s in c a rc e ra tio n , the S o c ial S e c u rityA c t p ro v id e d , su b jec t to a n e x c e p tio n n o t ap p lica b le h e re , tha t “n o m o n th ly[ d isa b ili ty ] b e n e f its sh a ll b e p a id . . . to anyi ndi vi dual foranym ont h dur i ng w hi ch s uch i ndi vi dual i s confi ned i n a j ai l , pr i s on, or otherpen al i nst i tuti on or corr ect i on al faci l i t y , pu rs uan tt o h i s conv i ct i on of an off ense w hich con st i tuted a fel on yun der app l i cable l aw . ” 42 U . S . C . § 4 02 (x) (1) (1993 ); see al so A r t z v. B arnhar t , 330 F. 3d 170, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A s not ed above , B i er l eyw as i m pr i s oned fr om A ugus t1990 t o A ugus t1994 pur s uantt o a convi ct i on foraggr avat ed assa u lt , a se co n d d eg ree fe lon y . S ee 1 8 P a.C . S . A . § § 2 7 0 2 (a)(4); 27 0 2 (b). I t i s clea r,It a p p e a rs th a t u p o n e x p ira tio n o f th e se n ten c e f

o r th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt 2 convi ct i on i n A ugus t1994, B i er l eyr emai ned i ncar cer at ed unt i l D ece m ber1994 forot her offe ns es . T he C om m i s s i onerdi d notal l ege thatB i er l eyw as overpai d fr om A ugus t1994 t o D ece m ber1994. 5 t her efor e, t hatB i er l eyw as overpai d fr om A ugus t1993, the dat e he be came el i gi bl e for benef i t s , t o A ugus t1994, w hen hi s s ent ence forthe aggr avat ed as s aul tfel onyconvi ct i on expi r ed. 2 T he Soci al Secur i t yA ctm andat es r epaym entof overpaym ent s exce ptw her e an i nd i vidual “i s w i t ho ut faul t ” and “such a djustm ent orrecoveryw ou l d d efeat the p urpose of [Ti t l e I I of the Soci al Secur i t yA ct ] orw oul d be aga i ns tequi t yand good cons ci ence . ” 42 U . S. C . § 404( b) ; s ee a l s o 20 C . F. R . § 404. 506. T he A L J found thatB i er l eyw as not w i t houtfaul tbeca us e he kne w t hathe s houl d nothave r ece i ved bene fi t s forhi s per i od of in c a rc e ra tio n . S e e 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .5 0 7 (c ) (p ro v id in g th a t a c laim a n t is a t f a u lt i n re c e iv in g o v e rp a ym e n ts w h e n th e in c o rre c t p a ym e n t re su lts f ro m , inte r a lia, f

a ilu re to r etur n a paym entw hi ch the i ndi vi dual knew orcoul d have be en expe ct ed t o know w as in c o rr e c t) . S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th is c o n c lu s io n . T he evi dence i ndi cat es t hatB i er l eyknew thatthe SSA i m pr oper l ypai d benef i t s for t he p eri od t hat he w as i ncarcerat ed. A ccordi ng t o the A L J w ho den i ed B i erl ey ’s request fora w ai ver , t he SSA not i fi ed B i er l eythatno paym entw oul d be made forthe per i od he w as i ncar cer at ed. T o t hi s end, B i er l eyi nform ed the A L J w ho i ni t i al l ydet erm i ned thathe w a s d is a b le d th a t h e h a d b e e n in c a rc e ra te d f ro m A u g u s t 1 9 9 0 to D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 4 .6

Pr es um abl yaw ar e of the i m por t ance of thos e dat es t o hi s benef i t s cal cul at i on, B i er l ey l at ercorr ect ed the dat es , advi s i ng t hatA L J thathi s per i od of i ncar cer at i on forthe a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l tc o n v i c t i o n e n d e d i n A u g u s t1 9 9 5 , r a t h e rth a n D e c e m b e r1 9 9 4 . We acknow l edge thatt he SSA w as aw ar e of Bi er l ey ’ s i ncar cer at i on atthe t i m e i tr el eas ed pas tdue bene fi t s . I ndeed, t he C om m i s s i onerconce des thatthe overpaym entw as caus ed byan “a dm i ni s t r at i ve err or . ” H ow ever , “[a ] l t hough the A dm i ni s t r at i on m ayhave be en at faul ti n m aki ng t he overpaym ent , t hatfac tdoes notr el i eve the overpai d i ndi vi dual . . fr om lia b ility f o r r e p a ym e n t if

s u c h in d iv id u a l is n o t w ith o u t f a u lt.” 8 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .5 0 7 . B i er l eycl ai m s t hatatt he t i m e of the overpaym enthe bel i eved thathe w as ent i t l ed to a ll th e p a st d u e b e n e f its b e c a u se h is c o n v ictio n w a s illeg a l. T h is a rg u m e n t is compl et el yw i t houtm er i t . E ven as s um i ng thatr ever s al of a c onvi ct i on w oul d ent i t l e a c laim a n t to b e n e f

its f o r th e p e rio d o f

h is in c a rc e ra tio n , an iss u e th a t w e d o n o t d e c id e in t hi s cas e, B i er l ey ’ s cl ai m w oul d fai l beca us e he di d notdemonstr at e thathi s aggr avat ed a s s a u l tc o n v i c t i o n h a s i n a n ywayb e e n s e ta s i d e . Ra t h e r , Bi e r l e yr e q u e s t e d th a tth e ALJ iss u e a su b p o e n a f

o r h is v ictim ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s, w h ich h e c laim s w o u ld d e m o n stra te th a t h is c o n v ictio n w a s o b tain e d w ith th e u se o f p e rju re d tes tim o n y . T h e A L J p ro p e rly deni ed B i er l ey ’ s r eques t , s t at i ng t hat“i s s ues of cr i m i nal l i abi l i t yar e out s i de the ambi tof t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t yAc ta n d a r e e x p r e s s l yc o mmi t t e d t o S t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . ” Cf. 2 0 C. F . R. § 404. 946 ( “The i s s ues befor e the admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge i ncl ude al l the i s s ues br ought o u t in th e in iti a l, rec o n sid e re d o r re v ise d d e ter m in a tio n th a t w e re n o t d e c id e d e n tirelyin7

y o u r f a v o r.” ). I V. I n concl us i on, w e fi nd t hatt he A L J ’ s concl us i ons ar e s uppor t ed by“s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” and thatt he A L J appl i ed the corr ects t atut es and r egul at i ons i n eval uat i ng B i er l ey ’ s r eques tfora w ai ver . A ccor di ngl y , forthe r eas ons s t at ed, B i er l eyw as not ent i t l ed t o a w ai verof the overpaym ent , and w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt.