FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 11, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 11485 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 5 8 5 - CV- J - HTS J O A N N E W B E R G E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 11, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J oa n N e w be r ge rappe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de r , w hi c h a f f i rm e d theWe reviewwhether the ALJ ’s finding s aresupported by substantial evidenceand 1 wh e ther t hec or re c t le g al standard s w erea pp lie d. Graham v. Ap fe l, 1 29 F .3 d 1 42 0, 14 22 (1 1th Cir. 1997). 2 a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge ’ s ( “ A L J ” ) de ni a l of N e w be r ge r ’ s r e que s tf

oraw a i ve rof the re covery of the ov erpaym entof S up pl em ent al S ec uri ty I ncom e ( “ S S I” ) b e n e f i t s . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D Th e So c i a l Se c u r i ty A d mi n i s tr a t i o n ( “ SSA ” ) s t o p p e d N e w b e r g e r ’ s SSI p a y m e n ts a f

te rit le a rn e d th a t N e w b e r g e rw a s m a rr ie d to J a m e s P o o le f r o m 2 0 0 0 to 2 0 0 5 a n d h a d b e e n in v o lv e d in ap e t g r o o m in g b u s in e s s w ith h e rh u s b a n d . N e w be r ge rr e que s t e d ahe a r i ng a nd aw a i ve rof the S S A ’ s r e c ove ry of ove rpa y m e nt s s he ha d r e c e i ve d. A soci al se curi ty c l ai m antw ho re qu es t s aw ai ver of r ec ov ery of a n o v e rp a y m e n t o f

b e n e f its m u s t p r o v id e in f

o rm a tio n to s u p p o r t h e rc la im th a t s h e is

“ w i tho utfaul ti n causi ng the ov erpaym ent ” a nd thatre covery w ou l d ei ther defe at the purpos e of

T i t l e I I of

the S oc i a l S e c ur i ty A c torbe a ga i ns te qui ty a nd good consci ence . 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 50 6(a) , (c ). A . H e a r i ng Be f

o r e A LJ A n att orney, E ri k B er ger, ori gi nal l y f i l ed N ew berger’ s r equestfor aw ai ver, b u t th e n w ith d r e w f

r o m r e p r e s e n tin g h e ro n e m o n th la te ro n O c to b e r2 4 , 2 0 0 5 .3

N ew berger then fi l ed her ow n requestfor aw ai ver a nd had st i l l no tre t ai ned an a tto rn e y b y th e tim e o f

th e F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 h e a r in g o n h e rw a iv e rr e q u e s t. A tthe he a r i ng on he rw a i ve rr e que s t , the A L J di s c us s e d w i th N e w be r ge rthe f a c ttha ts he w a s unr e pr e s e nt e d. T he A L J poi nt e d outtha ti n the not i c e of the hear i ng there w as i nform at i on advi si ng her thatshe c ou l d h ave her a tt orney re pres enther a tthe heari ng . W hen the A L J a sked N ew berger w hether s he w i shed t o pr oc e e d w i thoutal a w y e r , N e w be r ge rr e s ponde d, “ Y e a h. I c oul dn’ tge ta ny body t o, t o d o i t . ” T he A L J s t at ed, “ L on g as w e have i tcl ea r thatyou w i sh t o p roce ed w ith o u t th a t r e p r e s e n ta tio n a t th is tim e , I w ill c o n tin u e w ith th e h e a r in g .” N e w b e r g e rte s tif

ie d th a t s h e d id n o t r e a liz e s h e w a s m a rr ie d to P o o le u n til s he r e c e i ve d al e tt e rf

r om the S S A i nf

orm i ng he rs o. N e w be r ge re xpl a i ne d tha ts he a nd P ool e obt a i ne d am a rr i a ge appl i c a t i on onl y s o tha tN e w be r ge r ’ s e x- hus ba nd w oul d “ thi nk [ s he ] w a s m a rr i e d be c a us e w he n [ the y ] di d the r e s tr a i ni ng or de r , the j ud ge sa i d thatM r. P oo l e c ou l dn ’ tst ayi n [her] ho use a nd [P oo l e] has t o b e there be c a us e [ he r ] e x w a s be a t i ng [ he r ] . ” N e w be r ge rf i r s tt e s t i f i e d tha tP ool e di d not l i ve w i th h erand l at erst at ed thatshe r ent ed a r oo m fr om P oo l e. N e w be r ge rs t a t e d tha ts he vol unt e e r e d a tP ool e ’ s gr oom i ng s hop a nd w a s not p a id a n y m o n e y . S h e u s e d P o o le ’s c o m p a n y c a r , b u t o n ly to ru n p e r s o n a l e rr a n d s . N ew b erg er t est i fi ed th ati tco stP o o l e $ 8 5 0 each m o n th t o t ak e care o f h er b ecau se4

she w as un abl e t o b athe or car e f or hers el f. P ool e t e s t i f

i e d tha the a nd N e w be r ge rw e r e m a rr i e d be tw e e n 2000 a nd 2005 to p r o te c t N e w b e r g e rf

r o m h e re x - h u s b a n d a n d th a t P o o le a n d N e w b e r g e rb o th pres ent l y r es i ded i n the sa m e hou se . P oo l e s t at ed thatN ew berger vol un t ee re d at hi s petgroo m i ng bu si ness by ca ri ng for the ani m al s a nd w ai t i ng on cust om er s. In r e s pons e t o the A L J ’ s que s t i ons , P ool e t e s t i f i e d abouthi s f

i na nc i a l s i tua t i on, prov i di ng the val ues of hi s c om m er ci al l ot s a nd the gross i ncom e f or hi s pet g r o o m in g b u s in e s s . P o o le s ta te d th a t h e w a s th e o n ly p e r s o n n a m e d o n h is fi n an ci al acco u n t s an d th ath e d i d n o tl i stan yo n e as a b en efi ci ary o n h i s acco u n t s. Joan V annestS cott , a f

ri end o f N ew berger, t es t i fi ed thatP oo l e hel ped N e w be r ge ra s ac a r e t a ke ra nd tha tN e w be r ge rne e de d he rS S I be ne f i t s be c a us e s he di d n othave enou gh m on eyfor f oo d and m edi ci ne. In addi t i on , N ew berger s ub m i tt ed evi dence, i ncl ud i ng , i nt eral i a, N e w be r ge r ’ s a nd P ool e ’ s J a nua ry 13, 2000 m a rr i a ge appl i c a t i on; the J ul y 8, 2005 fi n al j u d g m en td i sso l v i n g th ei r m arri ag e; tw o p ro t ect i v e o rd ers i ssu ed ag ai n st N e w be r ge r ’ s f

i r s thus ba nd, D a n S nodgr a s s , due t o dom e s t i c vi ol e nc e , the s e c ond of w hi c h s t a t e d tha tP ool e w a s “ nott o oc c upy the hous e ” ; al e tt e rf r om P ool e s t a t i ng thatN ew berger pai d h i m $5 75 a m on th t o m anage her mo nthl y bi l l s a nd m edi ca l ex p en ses; an d so m e o f P o o l e’ s t ax d o cu m en t s.5

T he A L J de ni e d N e w be r ge r ’ s r e que s tf oraw a i ve rof

the r e c ove ry of

the ove rpa y m e nt . T he A L J f ound tha tN e w be r ge rha d m a r i t a l a s s e t s i n e xc e s s of $2, 000 w hi l e m a rr i e d t o P ool e , w a s ove rpa i d $33, 948 i n S S I dur i ng tha tt i m e , a nd w a s a t f a u lt in c a u s in g th e o v e rp a y m e n t b e c a u s e s h e f a ile d to r e p o r t h e rm a rr ia g e to P oo l e. T he A L J a l so concl ud ed thatN ew berger had w orked “ i n a prop ri et ary f a s hi on” a tP ool e ’ s pe tgr oom i ng bus i ne s s a nd tha the r“ purpor t e d di vor c e [ f r om P oo l e] . . . w as i n res po nse t o the dem and for rec ov ery of the ov erpaym ent . ” B . D i s t r i c t C ou r t A c t i on N e w be r ge r , r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l , f i l e d thi s a c t i on i n f

e de r a l c our ts e e ki ng r e vi e w of

the A L J ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha ts he w a s a tf a ul tf orthe ove rpa y m e nta nd d e n ia l o f h e rw a iv e rr e q u e s t. N e w b e r g e ra s s e r te d th a t th e A L J h a d f a ile d to illic it a know i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge ntw a i ve rof he rr i ghtt o r e pr e s e nt a t i on. A f t e rc ons e nt i ng t o a m agi stra t e j ud ge exerc i si ng j uri sdi ct i on , the m agi stra t e j ud ge i ss ued an o rder af fi rm i ng the A L J’ s det erm i nat i on . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge concl ud ed that N e w b e r g e rh a d n o t k n o w in g ly a n d in te llig e n tly w a iv e d h e rs ta tu to ry r ig h t to c ouns e l . H ow e ve r , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge a l s o de t e rm i ne d N e w be r ge rha d not show n thatthe A L J l ac ked any rel evantevi dence or fa i l ed t o con si der the evi dence and thu s N ew berger had not s ho w n the re qu i si t e pre j ud i ce . N e w b e r g e rf

ile d th is ap p e a l.Th eprov isi on s o f § 40 6, whic h add re ss o ld ag e , s ur

viv or s a nd dis a bil ity insuranc e , also 2 apply to SS I . See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d). 6 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p ea l, N ew b er g erd o es n o t ch allen g e th e m er it s o f th e A L J’s de t e rm i na t i on, butr a the ra r gue s tha ts he di d notr e c e i ve af ul l a nd f a i rhe a r i ng be c a us e s he di d note f

f e c t i ve l y w a i ve he rr i ghtt o r e pr e s e nt a t i on. U n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 6 , th e C o m m is s io n e ro f S o c ia l S e c u r ityis r e q u ir e d to “n o tif y e a c h c la im a n t in w r itin g . . . o f th e o p tio n s f

o ro b ta in in g a tto rn e y s to re pres enti nd i vi du al s i n p re se nt i ng thei r c as es before the C om m i ss i on erof S oci al S e c u r ity . S u c h n o tif

ic a tio n s h a ll a ls o a d v is e th e c la im a n t o f th e a v a ilab ility to qu al i fy i ng cl ai m ant s of l egal se rvi ce s organi za t i on s w hi ch prov i de l egal se rvi ce s fr ee of char ge. ” 42 U . S . C . § 4 06 (c ). T hi s C ou rthas r ec og ni ze d that“ [a ] S oci al 2 S e c ur i ty c l a i m a ntha s as t a tut ory r i ght , w hi c h m a y be w a i ve d, t o be r e pr e s e nt e d by c o u n s e l a t ah e a r in g b e f o r e a n A L J .” G r a h a m v . A p f e l, 1 2 9 F .3 d 1 4 2 0 , 1 4 2 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 97 ). W here a c l ai m anthas notbeen adequat el y i nform ed of her s t atut ory r i ght , how e ve r , he rw a i ve ri s not“ know i ngl y a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l y ” m a de . S m i th v. S chw ei ker, 66 7 F . 2d 82 6, 82 8 (11 th C i r. 19 82 ). “ T he depri vat i on of the st atut ory r ig h t to c o u n s e l a t aS o c ia l S e c u r ity h e a r in g is as ta tu to ry w r o n g , n o t a c ons t i tut i ona l w r ong. ” G r a ha m , 122 F . 3d a t1422. “ W h en th e ri g h tt o rep resen t at i o n h as n o tb een w ai v ed , . . . ‘ [th e A L J’ s]7

ob l i gat i on t o d evel op a f ul l and fai r r ec ord ri se s t o a spec i al du ty, ’ ” w hi ch

“ ‘ re qu i re s, es se nt i al l y, a r ec ord w hi ch show s thatthe cl ai m antw as no tprej ud i ce d by l a c k of

c ouns e l . ’ ” B r ow n v. S ha l a l a , 44 F . 3d 931, 934 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng S m i th, 677 F . 2d a t829) . T hi s s t a nda r d doe s notr e qui r e us “ t o de t e rm i ne tha tthe pr e s e nc e of

c ouns e l w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y ha ve r e s ul t e d i n a ny s pe c i f i c be ne f i t s i n the h a n d lin g o f

th e c a s e b e f

o r e th e A L J .” I d . a t 9 3 5 ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . H ow e ve r , “ the r e m us tbe as how i ng of pr e j udi c e be f

or e w e w i l l f

i nd tha tthe cl ai m an t ’ s ri g h tt o d u e p ro cess h as b een v i o l at ed t o su ch a d eg ree th atth e case m ustbe re m anded t o the S ec re t ary f or further devel op m entof the re cord. ” I d. ; se e al so K el l eyv. H ec kl er , 76 1 F . 2d 15 38 , 15 40 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ) ( expl ai ni ng that reg ard l ess o f w h eth er a cl ai m an tw ai v ed h er ri g h tt o co u n sel , th e cl ai m an tm u st show prej ud i ce t o o bt ai n a re m and). P r e j udi c e “ a tl e a s tr e qui r e s as how i ng tha tthe A L J di d notha ve a l l of the r e l e va nte vi de nc e be f

or e hi m i n the r e c or d ( w hi c h w oul d i nc l ude r e l e va nt te s tim o n y f

r o m c la im a n t) , o rth a t th e A L J d id n o t c o n s id e ra ll o f th e e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d in r e a c h in g h is d e c is io n .” K e lle y , 7 6 1 F .2 d a t 1 5 4 0 . “T h e c o u r t s h o u ld b e g u i d ed b y w h eth er th e reco rd rev eal s ev i d en t i ary g ap s w h i ch resu l ti n u n fai rn ess o r‘c le a rp r e

ju d ic e .’” G r a h a m , 1 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 4 2 3 ( q u o tin g B r o w n , 4 4 F .3 d a t 9 3 5 ) . T he r e i s no s how i ng of

pr e j udi c e w he n ac l a i m a ntm a ke s no a l l e ga t i on tha tthe8

r e c o r d w a s in c o m p le te o rin a d e q u a te o rth a t th e A L J ’s o p in io n w a s n o t th o r o u g h . S e e K e l l e y , 761 F . 2d a t1540. H e r e , e ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo N e w be r ge rdi d notknow i ngl y a nd i n t e l l i g e n t l y wa i v e h e rr i g h tt o c o u n s e l , s h e h a s n o ts h o wn p r e j u d i c e . Th e ALJ i nqui r e d i nt o N e w be r ge r ’ s m a rr i a ge t o a nd di vor c e f r om P ool e , he rl i vi ng a nd e m p l o y m e n th i s t o ry a n d P o o l e ’ s f i n a n c e s . T h e r e c o r d th e AL J d e v e l o p e d s h o ws thatN ew berger w as m arri ed t o P oo l e f rom 20 00 t o 2 00 5, thatshe f ai l ed t o report h e rm a rr ia g e to th e S S A a n d th a t P o o le ’s r e s o u r c e s e x c e e d e d th e $ 2 ,0 0 0 lim it. N e w be r ge rm a ke s onl y aba r e a s s e r t i on of pr e j udi c e . S he doe s nota l l e ge tha tthe A L J di d notf

ul f i l l hi s obl i ga t i on t o de ve l op af ul l a nd f a i rr e c or d, tha tthe reco rd w as i n an y w ay i n co m p l et e o r i n accu rat e o r th atth e p resen ce o f an att o rn ey, or a m ore tho roug h h ea ri ng , w ou l d h ave r es ul t ed i n add i t i on al evi dence benefi ci al t o N e w be r ge r ’ s c a s e . B e c a us e N e w be r ge rha s nots how n pr e j udi c e , r e m a nd t o the S S A i s notappr opr i a t e , a nd w e c a nnots a ythe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d i n a f f i rm i ng the A L J ’ s de c i s i on. AF F I RME D.