Pacheco v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2019cv01373 - Document 23 (D.P.R. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 MOTION to dismiss as to Commissioner of Social Security, US Attorney District of PR. The case is DISSMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Camille L. Velez-Rive on 12/17/2020. (ari) Modified on 12/18/2020 to replace capital letters and add text "Opinion and" (ab).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pacheco v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 23 Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO VANESSA PACHECO, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 19-1373 (CVR) v. ANDREW SAUL1, Com m issioner of Social Security, Defendant. OPIN ION AN D ORD ER IN TROD U CTION On April 17, 20 19, Plaintiff Vanessa Pacheco (“Plaintiff”) filed the present action to obtain judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, the Deputy Com m issioner of Operations, perform ing the duties and functions not reserved to the Com m issioner of Social Security (“Com m issioner” or “Defen dant”), who den ied her application for disability benefits. (Docket No. 1) 2 . On J une 25, 20 19, Plaintiff consented to appear before a Magistrate J udge for all further proceedings in this case. (Docket Nos. 5, 6 and 7). 3 Pending before the Court is the Com m issioner’s Motion to Dism iss (Docket No. 13), alleging that the present case is tim e barred or in the alternative, that it is not subject to an extension of tim e or equitable tolling. Also pending are Plaintiff’s opposition 1 Andrew Saul has now been nam ed Com m issioner of Social Security and is autom atically substituted as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); see also section 20 5(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 40 5(g), “action survives regardless of any change in the person occupying the office of Com m ission er of Social Security”. 2 42 U.S.C. Sec. 40 5(g), provides for judicial review of the final decision of the Com m issioner. “... [t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgm ent without rem anding the cause for rehearing”. Section 20 5(g). 3 The United States has already provided a general consent to proceed before a Magistrate J udge in all Social Security cases. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A), (c)(1) and (c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a). Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 2 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 2 ______________________________ (Docket No. 18) and Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Docket No 19). After a thorough review, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts that could support a finding that she tim ely filed for an extension of tim e or that equitable circum stances exist for tolling the statute of lim itations. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dism iss and DISMISSES WITH PREJ UDICE this case. FACTU AL BACKGROU N D The present case followed the usual chronology in a Social Security claim . Plaintiff first filed an application for disability insurance benefits, which was denied initially an d later, on reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an adm in istrative law judge (“ALJ ”), who issued an unfavorable decision. A copy of this decision was m ailed to Plaintiff. After receiving the ALJ ’s decision, Plaintiff asked the Appeals Council for review, which ultim ately denied relief. On Decem ber 11, 20 18, the Appeals Council m ailed its “Notice of Appeals Council Action” (“notice”) to Plaintiff, which officially inform ed her of its decision, to her address of record at 933 Calle Guaraca, Puerto Real, Cabo Rojo, P.R. 0 0 623. The notice specifically inform ed Plaintiff of three things. First, that she had sixty (60 ) days to appeal the decision if she disagreed with it. Second, that the letter was presum ed to be received within five (5) days from the date thereon, and the burden was on Plaintiff to dem onstrate otherwise. Third, the notice advised her that if she was unable to appeal within that sixty (60 ) day tim e fram e, she should ask the Appeals Council for an extension of tim e to do so. The notice also indicated that Plaintiff m ust have a Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 3 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 3 ______________________________ good reason for requesting m ore tim e than the allotted sixty (60 ) days for judicial review of her claim s. Plaintiff alleges that she “believes” the tim e to file her claim was extended via a letter she was unable to find. 4 However, the Social Security Adm inistration has no record of Plaintiff asking the Appeals Council to extend the deadline to file a civil com plaint. (Docket No. 21, Exhibit 1). The Com m issioner alleges in the Motion to Dism iss (Docket No. 13) that the present case is tim e barred because Plaintiff failed to file the Com plaint within the sixty (60 ) day window specified in 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). In addition, the Com m issioner avers that, although the sixty (60 ) day tim e lim it can be tolled for good cause, there is no basis in the present case to do so. In turn, Plaintiff argues that on February 13, 20 19 she visited the Social Security Adm inistration’s office in Mayagüez and was told that they could not help her with the appeal. Plaintiff opted instead to attem pt to protect the filing date of her civil claim by sending via certified m ail a “Statem ent of Claim ant or Other Person” (the “statem ent”) on February 15, 20 19, detailing her efforts in the case up to that juncture and indicating it was her Com plaint 5. Finally, through counsel, Plaintiff filed her Com plaint over two m onths later, on April 17, 20 19. 4 See Docket No 16, p. 1, ¶ 5. “Therefore, I hereby file a Com plaint with the United States District Court of Puerto Rico nam ing the Com m issioner of Social Security as m y Defendant. Meanwhile, I will keep trying to obtain representation to assist m e in m y appeal”. Docket No. 18 , Exhibit 1. In her opposition, coun sel for Plaintiff n ow argues this was a request for an extension of tim e. Id. at p. 2. 5 Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 4 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 4 ______________________________ STAN D ARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs to provide “a short and plain statem ent of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a)(2). A “short and plain” statem ent needs only enough detail to provide a defendant with “‘fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Twom bly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (20 0 7); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (20 0 7) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (a)(2) requires only ‘a short an d plain statem ent....’ Specific facts are not necessary.”). Yet, in order to “show” an entitlem ent to relief a com plaint m ust contain enough factual m aterial “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assum ption that all the allegations in the com plaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” See, Twom bly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. When addressing a m otion to dism iss under Rule 12, the court m ust “accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the com plaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.” Gargano v. Liberty Int’l Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48-49 (1st Cir. 20 0 9). Under Twom bly, 550 U.S. at 555, however, a plaintiff m ust “provide the grounds of his entitlem ent [with] m ore than labels and conclusions.” See also, Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 20 11). Thus, a plaintiff is now required to present allegations that “nudge [his] claim s across the line from conceivable to plausible” in order to com ply with the requirem ents of Rule 8 (a). Id. at 570 ; see, e.g. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (20 0 9). As specifically applied to Social Security cases, the First Circuit has determ ined Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 5 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 5 ______________________________ that a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion is the appropriate standard where the Com m issioner argues for dism issal of a case for failing to tim ely file. Maldonado Medina v. Com m ’r of Soc. Sec. Adm in. No. 18 -10 91, 20 19 WL 2710 80 1 at *1 (D.P.R. J une 27, 20 19) (quoting Grant v. Berryhill, 695 Fed. Appx. 592, 593 (1st Cir. 20 17)). In the present case, both parties have presented docum ents related to Defendant’s Motion to Dism iss. While no authority expressly authorizes the subm ission of evidence at the m otion to dism iss stage in an equitable tolling context such as the one present in the case at bar, there is persuasive authority concerning allowing evidence in statute of lim itations claim s in the regulations, and further, both this district and Circuit have allowed such evidence to be considered at this stage. See 20 C.F.R. § 422.210 (c) (to rebut a presum ption for when the statute of lim itations begins to run, a claim ant needs to dem onstrate a “reasonable showing to the contrary.”); McLaughlin v. Astrue, 443 Fed. Appx. 571, 574 (1st Cir. 20 11) (allowing the subm ission of attorney’s copy of a notice); Maldonado Medina, 20 19 WL 2710 80 1 at *2 (Court considered new evidence subm itted by both sides to support their statute of lim itations claim s at 12(b)(6) stage). Therefore, the Court will consider the docum ents filed by the parties as part of its 12(b)(6) analysis. LEGAL AN ALYSIS A. Th e s ixty ( 6 0 ) d ay tim e fram e . Defendant’s Motion to Dism iss is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) which provides in relevant part: “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Com m ission er of Social Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 6 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 6 ______________________________ Security m ade after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the am ount in controversy, m ay obtain a review of such decision by a civil action com m enced within sixty days after the m ailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further tim e as the Com m issioner of Social Security m ay allow.” The term “m ailing” is defined as the date in which the individual receives the Appeals Council’s notice of denial of request for review. See 20 C.F.R. § 422.210 (c); 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.981. The date of receipt is presum ed to be five days after the date of the notice, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary m ade to the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.90 1, 422.210 (c); Maldonado Medina, 20 19 WL 2710 80 1 at*2; Lloyd v. Sullivan, 8 82 F.2d 218 (7th Cir.1989); Matsibekker v Heckler, 738 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 198 4) (noting “[r]ather than com m encing on the date notice of decision is m ailed to the claim ant, the sixty day period starts from the tim e notice is received by the claim ant”). Consequently, unless a claim ant can show otherwise, he or she is presum ed to have sixtyfive (65) days from the date the Appeals Council issues the denial letter to file a civil action to review the decision. Carroll v. Astrue, No. 0 9-0 0 515, 20 10 WL 2133866 at *2, (N. D. Ind. May 24, 20 10 ). The United States Suprem e Court has held that this sixty (60 ) day requirem ent is not jurisdictional, but rather is a period of lim itations that m ay be tolled by the Com m issioner or the court if fairness so dem ands. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479-81, 10 6 S.Ct. 20 22, 20 30 -20 31 (1986). Because this lim itation period constitutes “a condition on the waiver of sovereign im m unity”, it “m ust be strictly Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 7 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 7 ______________________________ construed.” Id. Con sequently, 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g) “generally precludes late judicial challenge to the denial of benefits.” Piscopo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum an Servs., No. 932326, 1994 WL 283919 at *3 (1st Cir. 1994). However, a late judicial challenge preclusion has its exceptions. It is clear that a party m ay ask the Appeals Council for an extension of tim e within which to file a civil com plaint, even if that deadline has already passed. The Com m issioner, through the Appeals Council, m ay then grant an extension where a suit was not tim ely filed because of illness, accident, destruction of records, or m istake; the claim ant m isunderstan ds the appeal process or is unable tim ely to collect necessary inform ation; or the Com m issioner undertook action that “m isled” the claim ant concerning her right to review. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.911, 416.1411. In addition, in those rare cases where “the equities in favor of tolling the lim itations period are ‘so great that deference to the agency’s judgm ent is inappropriate,’” the Court itself m ay toll the lim itations period. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480 . The Com m issioner argues that the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on Decem ber 11, 20 18 and on that date, m ailed the Notice of Appeals Council Action to her to her address of record. For this reason, the Com m issioner claim s, the deadline to file Plaintiff’s com plaint in federal court (or to seek an extension for doing so) was February 14, 20 19; that is to say, five (5) days granted for m ailing, plus sixty (60 ) days granted by the statute. Plaintiff’s statem ent was sent on February 15, 20 19. As such, the Com m issioner posits her filing was tardy. In Plaintiff’s opposition, she does not argue that she received the notice on a Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 8 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 8 ______________________________ different date. Rather, Plaintiff contends instead that her m ailing was tim ely because it was not due until February 16, 20 19. Plaintiff placed her statem ent in the m ail on February 15, 20 19. Thus, Plaintiff asserts it was tim ely filed. 6 The Court cannot agree. As the Com m issioner has explained, where the fifth day in the presum ptive period ends on a Sunday, courts have found that the presum ptive period does not extend to the next business day. See Nee v. Berryhill, No. 17-11459, 20 19 WL 6699454, at *4 (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 20 19); Cope v. Colvin, No. 14-882, 20 17 WL 1954926, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 11, 20 17); Rodriguez v. Colvin, No. 15-0 1627, 20 16 WL 3196771, at *3 (E.D. Cal. J une 9, 20 16). Plaintiff adm its that the Notice denying Plaintiff’s request for review was sent on Decem ber 11, 20 18 . Plaintiff is therefore presum ed to have received the Notice five days later, on Sunday Decem ber 16, 20 18, unless she m akes a reasonable showing to the contrary. Plaintiff has failed to m ake such a showing. Hence, the sixty (60 ) day period to file her com plaint would have ended February 14, 20 19. Plaintiff’s statem ent was sent on February 15, 20 19, therefore m aking it untim ely. Further com plicating Plaintiff’s argum ent is the fact that the statem ent Plaintiff m ailed on February 15, 20 19 to the Office of the General Counsel, the Attorney General of the United States and the US Attorney was n ot a com plaint per se but rather som ething com pletely different. 6 Plaintiff m ailed a “Statem ent of Claim ant or Other Person”, The Court assum es, as did Defendant, that the reason why Plaintiff posits that the deadline was February 16 was because the presum ptive fifth day, Decem ber 16, 20 18, fell on a Sunday. Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 9 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 9 ______________________________ indicating, am ong others, the following: that she had been unable to find legal representation; that she was fully aware of the sixty (60 ) day period, plus five days in which to file her com plaint; that she had decided to file the appeal herself; that said docum ent was her Com plaint (“I hereby file a Com plaint…”) and that she would continue to seek legal representation for her appeal. (Docket No. 18, Exhibit 1). The Court is cognizant that Plaintiff prepared these docum ents pro se and m ust be lenient with Plaintiff for that reason. However, the Court cannot determ in e that the statem ent sent by Plaintiff on February 15, 20 19 was a com plaint which com plied with the requirem ents a com plaint should have as inform ed to her in the Appeals Council’s den ial letter. Plaintiff’s statem ent clearly indicated that she was aware that she had to file a civil action by filing a form al Com plaint against the Com m issioner of Social Security in the United States District Court, and that she had to deliver copies of the Com plaint and the sum m ons issued by the Court to the US Attorney of the judicial district where the Com plaint was filed. This assertion in Plaintiff’s statem ent shows that she had knowledge that a com plaint had to be filed before this Court and sum m ons issued to be served thereafter. Nonetheless, the record shows Plaintiff chose to subm it a statem ent instead an d then untim ely filed a Com plaint before this Court on April 17, 20 19. Therefore, Plaintiff’s actions were procedurally deficient. Perhaps noting this predicam ent, Plaintiff’s new counsel now argues in her opposition that the statem ent was instead an extension of tim e. (Docket No. 18, p. 2). Even giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and assum ing that the statem ent she m ailed Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 10 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 10 ______________________________ could qualify as an extension of tim e, her case suffers from the sam e infirm ity previously described. The statem ent was filed after the sixty (60 ) day period in which to do so. 7 B. Exte n s io n o f tim e / e qu itable to llin g. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the applicable circum stances to grant an extension of tim e are present here. She has not alleged illness, accident, destruction of records, or m istake; that she m isunderstood the appeal process or was unable tim ely to collect necessary inform ation; or that the com m issioner undertook action that “m isled” her concerning her right to review. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 40 4.911, 416.1411. The m ost Plaintiff has alleged is that she went to the Mayagüez office of the Social Security Adm inistration and was told they could not help her file her claim . This is not the sam e as being m isled or being unable to tim ely obtain necessary inform ation, which is the closest Plaintiff can strive for. Quite the opposite, it is rather clear that Plaintiff understood her rights, as she attem pted to protect her claim with the m ailing of the statem ent and was explicit in the statem ent as to the applicable dates (as she understood them ). Furtherm ore, she has failed to explain her inaction for the sixty (60 ) days before the deadline expired. The Court then looks at whether Plaintiff has shown that a tolling of this period is proper in her case, and finds it is not. In Bowen, the Suprem e Court noted that the 60 day period is subject to equitable tolling that is appropriate only in “rare cases.” Bowen, 7 An extension of tim e can be sought even after the period has lapsed, however, the issue then becom es whether Plaintiff has shown that such an extension was warranted, on in the alternative, if she has shown that equitable tollin g is applicable to the case at bar. Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 11 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 11 ______________________________ 476 U.S. at 480 . Because it is so rare, the burden of showing that the doctrin e applies therefore rests with its proponent. Pace v. DiGuglielm o, 544 U.S. 40 8, 418, 125 S.Ct. 18 0 7, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (20 0 5). And such burden m ust be m et with proof of both the exercise of reasonable diligence in pursuing the underlying rights as well as the concurrence of extraordinary circum stances preventing com pliance with an applicable deadline. Maldonado Medina, 20 19 WL 2710 80 1, at *3 (citing Menom inee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 , 755 (20 16). Equitable tolling is applied on a case-by-case basis, avoiding m echanical rules and favoring flexibility. Ortega Candeleria v. Orthobiologics LLC, 661 F.3d 675, 680 (1st Cir. 20 11). More specifically, in interpreting this rule courts in this Circuit consider the following five factors: (1) a lack of actual notice of a tim e lim it; (2) a lack of constructive notice of a tim e lim it; (3) diligence in the pursuit of one’s rights; (4) an absence of prejudice to a party’s opponent; and (5) the claim ant’s reasonableness in rem ainin g ignorant of the tim e lim it. See Borgos-Taboas v. HIMA San Pablo Hosp. Bayam ón, 8 32 F. Supp. 2d 121, 125 (D.P.R. 20 11)(citing to J obe v. I.N.S., 238 F.3d 96, 10 0 (1st Cir. 20 0 1)); and Muldoon v. Astrue, 590 F.Supp.2d 188, 194 (D.Mass. 20 0 8) (applying these factors to Social Security case). In the case at bar, there is no issue as to the notice of the tim e lim it, actual or constructive, because Plaintiff adm itted she was quite clear as to that m atter in the statem ent she sent in February 20 19. Regarding diligen ce, it has been defined as a claim ant actively pursuing her claim Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 12 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 12 ______________________________ during the statutory period, who m ust also show that she was prevented from filing suit due to extraordinary circum stances. Heim eshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins., 571 U.S. 99, 114, 134 S.Ct. 60 4, 615 (20 13). Plaintiff avers she pursued her claim with reasonable diligence but points to no exceptional circum stances that would excuse her tardy filing. In her brief, Plaintiff adm itted that she was aware of her duty to tim ely file and that she was provided instructions from the court on how to file, but “the em ployees of the Adm in istration did not properly or adequately attend to the extension of tim e request by Plaintiff when they inform ed her they could do nothing”. (Docket No. 18, p. 4). Plaintiff has not alleged a valid reason to excuse her tardiness nor a valid reason to have waited until literally the last m inute to seek guidance from the agency. Indeed, it was not until a full two m onths after the statutory deadline had lapsed that Plaintiff finally filed her actual Com plaint. (Docket No. 1). Additionally, as candidly stated by the Com m ission er, an inability to retain counsel does not qualify as an extraordinary circum stance providing a basis for equitable tolling of the deadline here, and Plaintiff points to no caselaw that so holds. Lewis v. Barnhart, 73 F. App’x 715, 71617 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). As to lack of prejudice, the statute of lim itations exists precisely to prom ote efficiency and quick resolution of appeals “due to the vast num ber of civil actions filed.” De Oliveira v. Astrue, Civil No. 10 -1190 5, 20 11 WL 70 99971, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 20 11). As applied to the case at bar, even if the Court were to consider the m ailing of the statem ent as a valid extension of tim e, the Com plaint was fin ally filed on April 17, 20 19, Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 13 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 13 ______________________________ over sixty (60 ) days past the original due date. Equitably tolling of a com plaint filed sixty (60 ) days after the statute of lim itations expired would underm in e the Congression al purpose of m oving cases to a speedy resolution and would probably increase the num ber of challenges to the Com m issioner’s decisions. Id. As to Plaintiff’s reasonableness in rem aining ignorant of the tim e lim it, Plaintiff has adm itted that she was aware of the sixty (60 ) day tim e lim it, and explicitly stated so in her statem ent. Therefore, the balance of these factors does not favor Plaintiff’s claim s. Sim ply put, equitable tolling is reserved for exceptional circum stances when the claim ant has satisfied her burden of exercising reasonable due diligence in pursuing her claim . Muldoon, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 194-95. Plaintiff has shown no extraordinary circum stances that would have allowed for an extension of tim e or equitable tolling in the case, an d without a showing of reasonable diligence, her claim s cannot go forward. The eviden ce presented by Plaintiff herself establishes that she was aware she had sixty-five (65) days afforded to her by statute and she still filed a form al Com plaint approxim ately sixty (60 ) days after that initial period had expired. Plaintiff had a total of over one hundred and twenty (120 ) days to reasonably pursue her claim s and file her Com plaint. She has failed to produce enough evidence to support why she was unable to tim ely do so. In view of the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that the circum stances to grant an extension of tim e to file her Com plaint are applicable here, and further, declines to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to this case. Case 3:19-cv-01373-CVR Document 23 Filed 12/17/20 Page 14 of 14 Vanessa Pacheco v. Com m issioner of Social Security Civil No. 19-1373 (CVR) Opinion and Order Page 14 ______________________________ CON CLU SION For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Com m issioner’s Motion to Dism iss (Docket No. 13) and hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJ UDICE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. J udgm ent shall be entered accordingly. In San J uan, Puerto Rico, on this 17th day of Decem ber 20 20 . S/ CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE CAMILLE L. VELEZ RIVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE J UDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
