Christopher McLees v. Andrew Saul, No. 20-1828 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision that while claimant was not at fault for the overpayment of disability benefits, he was not entitled to a waiver of recovery of the overpayment because he did not meet his burden of proving that recovery would be against equity and good conscience or defeat the purpose of Title II. [ November 09, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1828 ___________________________ Christopher McLees lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 6, 2020 Filed: November 12, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher McLees appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the Commissioner’s decision that he was overpaid disability insurance benefits and was not entitled to a waiver of recovery for the overpayment. We find that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s decision that while McLees was not at fault for the overpayment, he did not meet his burden of proving that recovery would be against equity and good conscience or defeat the purpose of Title II. See Rodysill v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review). The judgment is affirmed; and McLees’s motion to supplement the record is denied.2 ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 Because McLees’s father, who was his designated representative payee, was not a party to the underlying complaint and is not a party to the instant appeal, we do not consider McLees’s arguments challenging his father’s liability for the overpayment. See Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988) (per curiam) (it is well settled rule that only parties to lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal adverse judgment). -2-
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.
