Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Echeandia v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 25, 2018

SIGFREDO ECHEANDIA
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL ACTING COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

          RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

          Joan Glazer Margolis United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, Sigfredo Echeandia, commenced this action pro se on January 9, 2018, seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's claim for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits [“DIB”]. (Dkt. #1).[1] On February 13, 2018, the parties consented to this Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction and the case was transferred accordingly. (Dkt. #16; see Dkts. ##13, 15). On March 9, 2018, the Commissioner filed the pending Motion for Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkt. #17).[2] On April 3, 2018, this Magistrate Judge issued an Order allowing plaintiff additional time to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion, and warning plaintiff that a “failure to file a response to defendant's motion may result in defendant's motion being granted and plaintiff's case being dismissed without further notice.” (Dkt. #19 (emphasis omitted)).[3] Despite being granted additional time to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion, on April 19, 2018, plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court in which he states that he wants to file a brief in opposition, and that the “reason for the appeal is not agreeing with the outcome as well as having enough evidence of all [of his] medical issues.” (Dkt. #20). In this letter, plaintiff also requests that the Court “allow the time to interview [him] and speak with [him] regarding [his] issue.” (Dkt. #20).

         For the reasons stated below, defendant's Motion for an Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. #17) is granted.

         I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

         On December 8, 2015, plaintiff requested a hearing by an administrative law judge [“ALJ”] (Dkt. #17, Prelle Decl., Exh. 1), and by Notice, dated February 1, 2017, plaintiff was notified that his hearing was scheduled for April 18, 2017. (Id., Exh. 2).[4]Plaintiff completed his Acknowledgment of Receipt of the hearing notice on March 27, 2017. (Id., Exh. 3). In a letter dated April 4, 2017, plaintiff was reminded of his hearing scheduled for April 18, 2017. (Id., Exh. 4). Thereafter, in a letter from ALJ Ryan Alger, dated April 20, 2017, plaintiff was informed: “Since you did not appear at your hearing, you will need to show good cause if you still want to have a hearing with an administrative law judge. Please complete and sign the enclosed form and return it to our office within ten (10) days. . . .” (Id., Exh. 5). Accordingly, plaintiff responded:

I went to that hearing but I arrived a bit late because of transportation and that my health is damaged and I do not sleep at night for that reason I need if you would do me the favor of giving it to me in the afternoon and when I went to the first appointment I showed up an hour early and they did not have a translator and that is why they changed the appointment when all the time I had a translator.

(Id., Exh. 6).[5]

         In his Order of Dismissal, dated July 6, 2017, ALJ Alger explained that this was the

second hearing scheduled for the claimant. At the first scheduled hearing, the claimant requested a postponement in order to obtain legal representation. The claimant has been advised, both orally and in writing, that if the claimant failed to obtain legal representation, he must be prepared to proceed with the hearing without representation and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further postponement would be granted. In the interim period between the claimant's two hearings, the claimant failed to secure representation.

(Id., Exh. 7, Order of Dismissal at 2)(internal citation omitted). The ALJ concluded that plaintiff had “not given a good reason for his failure to appear at the time and place of hearing[, ]” he had “failed to establish any causes that led to his failure to appear[, ]” and he “did not detail extraordinary circumstances.” (Id.).

         Thereafter, plaintiff requested review of the dismissal, which the Appeals Council denied on August 31, 2017. (Id., Exh. 8). On January 9, 2018, plaintiff commenced this action, and on March 9, 2018, defendant filed the pending Motion for Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkt. #17). On April 3, 2018, this Magistrate Judge issued the following Order:

On January 9, 2018, plaintiff, representing himself, filed his Social Security Complaint (Dkt. #1), regarding the denial of his application for Social Security Disability Benefits. (See also Dkts. ##2-3, 8, 11). On February 13, 2018, both parties consented to the jurisdiction of this Magistrate Judge. (Dkts. ##13, 15-16).
On March 9, 2018, defendant filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. #17), on the grounds that there was no “final decision” issued regarding plaintiff's application because he failed to appear before the Administrative Law Judge [“ALJ”] for his hearing, plaintiff failed to provide an adequate reason for his failure to appear after the ALJ requested an explanation, and plaintiff has not asserted “a colorable constitutional claim[, ]” which would permit the Court ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.