Altschuld v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2017cv01959 - Document 24 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/10/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this entry, overrules plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and affirms the Administrative Law Judge's denial of benefits. (Related Docs. 4 , 21 , and 22 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Altschuld v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------------------: : : : : : : : : : : : GLENN ALTSCHULD, Plaintiff, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Case No. 1:17-cv-1959 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 4, 22] ----------------------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In this case, Plaintiff Glenn Altschuld claims that the Social Security Administration s appl“cat“on o‘ the Government Pens“on O‘‘set ( GPO ) to h“s Widower s Insurance Benefits was: (i) an uncompensated government taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and (ii) gender-based discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Pla“nt“‘‘ s ob”ect“ons, ADOPTS the Ma’“strate Jud’e s Report and Recommendation, and AFFIRMS the Adm“n“strat“ve Law Jud’e s denial of benefits. I. Background Plaintiff Altschuld worked both in the private sector and as an Ohio public sector schoolteacher before he retired.1 Upon retirement, he began collecting his government pension and Social Security benefits.2 Pla“nt“‘‘ s w“‘e, Audrey Altschuld, worked exclus“vely “n the pr“vate sector. 3 When she retired, she collected Social Security benefits until her death in July 2012.4 Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff 1 Doc. 21 at 1. Id. at 1-2. 3 Id. at 2. 2 4 Id. Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:17-cv-1959 Gwin, J. Altschuld applied for Widower s Insurance Benefits.5 The Social Security Administration (the SSA ) determined that, while Plaintiff was eligible for Widower s Insurance Benefits, such benefits were prohibited by the Government Pension Offset.6 The Government Pension Offset stops Widower s Insurance Benefits when the applicant is already receiving government pension benefits in a certain amount.7 Plaintiff Altschuld requested that the SSA reconsider its decision, which it declined to do.8 He then sou’ht rev“ew by an Adm“n“strat“ve Law Jud’e ( ALJ ), who held a February 18, 2015, hearing. 9 At that hearing, Plaintiff did not challenge the correctness of the application of the Government Pension Offset to his case. 10 Rather, he challenged the constitutionality of the Government Pension Offset itself.11 The ALJ, noting that she did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the Government Pension Offset, determined that the Government Pension Offset had been properly applied.12 Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Social Security Appeals Council, which denied his request for review.13 Plaintiff then brought this case, seeking review of the ALJ s decision and again asserting that the GPO is unconstitutional.14 Magistrate Judge Parker recommended that the Court a‘‘“rm the ALJ s decision.15 Plaintiff objected to that recommendation.16 II. Analysis The Court reviews objected-to-findings of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 17 Admittedly, it is somewhat unclear precisely which conclusions Plaintiff finds objectionable. But, because Plaintiff 5 Doc. 17 at 19. Id. at 24-27. 7 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.408a. 8 Doc. 17 at 29-33, 37-40. 9 Id. at 41-42, 64-78. 10 Id. at 64-78. 6 11 Id. Id. at 6, 75-76. 13 Id. at 2. 12 14 Doc. 4. Doc. 21. 16 Doc. 22. 17 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 15 -2- Case No. 1:17-cv-1959 Gwin, J. Altschuld is pro se, the Court reads his pleadings liberally.18 As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has objected to all of the Ma’“strate Jud’e s conclusions regarding the constitutionality of the Government Pension Offset, which the Court now considers. A. The Takings Challenge The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property without just compensation.19 Plaintiff claims that the application of the GPO to his W“dower s Insurance Benefits did just that.20 In evaluat“n’ Pla“nt“‘‘ s cla“m, the Court cons“ders ‘“rst whether the cla“mant has establ“shed a co’n“zable property “nterest ‘or the purposes o‘ the [Takings] Clause. 21 Pla“nt“‘‘ s ar’ument ‘a“ls here. The Supreme Court has held that a person s “nterest in Social Security benefits is not a property interest protected by the Takings Clause.22 Fundamentally, Plaintiff s ar’ument m“sunderstands the nature o‘ Soc“al Secur“ty.23 Social Security is not a government-run savings account, where citizens deposit their money for a period, but the money remains theirs. In ‘act, the el“’“b“l“ty ‘or bene‘“ts, and the amount o‘ such bene‘“ts, do not “n any true sense depend on the contr“but“on to the pro’ram throu’h the payment o‘ taxes. 24 Rather, when citizens—l“ke Pla“nt“‘‘ s w“‘e—pay money into Social Security, they pay a government tax.25 And when citizens receive Social Security benefits, they receive a government benefit.26 In l“’ht o‘ the Supreme Court s decisions, and the nature of Social Security, the application of the Government Pension Offset to proh“b“t the d“str“but“on o‘ W“dower s Insurance Bene‘“ts did not 18 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). U.S. Const. amend. V. 20 Doc. 18 at 1. 19 21 22 Coal. for Gov t Procurement v. Fed. Pr“son Indus., Inc., 365 F.3d 435, 481 (6th Cir. 2004). United States RR Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174 (1980) ( There is no claim that Congress has taken property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, since railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even el“m“nated at any t“me. ); see also Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 608-611 (1960) (holding that the r“’ht to Soc“al Secur“ty bene‘“ts d“d not qual“‘y as an accrued property r“’ht. ). 23 See Doc. 18 at 1; see also Doc.17 at 63-78. 24 Flemming, 363 U.S. at 609. 25 See id. ( The Soc“al Secur“ty system may be accurately descr“bed as a ‘orm o‘ soc“al “nsurance . . . whereby persons . . . are taxed to perm“t the payment o‘ bene‘“ts to the ret“red and d“sabled . . . . ). 26 Id. -3- Case No. 1:17-cv-1959 Gwin, J. violate the Fifth Amendment. The Court briefly notes that Pla“nt“‘‘ may also be assert“n’ a cla“m ‘or larceny a’a“nst the SSA for its application of the Government Pension Offset.27 Plaintiff, however, cannot assert such a claim because larceny is a crime, not a private cause of action. 28 Even were the Court to construe th“s as a cla“m ‘or convers“on, the Court s conclusions regarding Pla“nt“‘‘ s Takings Challenge defeats the claim. B. The Equal Protection Challenge Plaintiff also alleges that the Government Pension Offset is a gender-based classification that violates the Fourteenth Amendment s Equal Protection Clause. 29 The Court notes that, because Pla“nt“‘‘ s equal protection claim concerns federal (not state) action, it should have brought under the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourteenth. However, because Pla“nt“‘‘ s challen’e would be evaluated identically under either amendment,30 the Court proceeds as if Plaintiff had asserted his claim under the Fifth. The Const“tut“on ’enerally requ“res that all persons s“m“larly c“rcumstanced . . . be treated al“ke. 31 It does not, however, b“nd the le’“slature s hands so t“’htly that “t must treat th“n’s wh“ch are d“‘‘erent “n ‘act or op“n“on . . . as thou’h they were the same. 32 How closely the Court examines a challenged law depends on its content. If the law implicates a fundamental right or draws distinctions on the basis of a suspect class (like gender), the Court applies heightened scrutiny.33 If it does not, the Court applies a more deferential review. 34 Ne“ther Pla“nt“‘‘ s Compla“nt (Doc. 1), nor his Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), mention a claim for larceny. In his brief before the Magistrate Judge, however, he devotes a section to descr“pt“on o‘ the larceny. (Doc. 18 at 2-3). 28 See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986) ( [A] pr“vate c“t“zen lacks a ”ud“c“ally co’n“zable “nterest “n the prosecution or nonprosecution o‘ another. ); see also Hamilton v. City of Romulus, 409 F. App x 826, 833 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished opinion) ( [L]arceny “s a cr“me and not a pr“vate cause o‘ act“on. ). 29 Doc. 18 at 2. 30 See, e.g., Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678, 1686 n.1 (2017) ( Th[e] Court s approach to F“‘th Amendment equal protection claims has always been precisely the same as to equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. ) (quoting Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975)). 31 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982) (internal citations omitted). 27 32 Id. See, e.g., Ondo v. City of Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597, 608 (6th Cir. 2015). 34 Id. 33 -4- Case No. 1:17-cv-1959 Gwin, J. Here, Plaintiff alleges that the SSA discriminated on the basis of gender and therefore the Court must apply “ntermed“ate scrut“ny. Pla“nt“‘‘ s ar’ument goes like this: Pla“nt“‘‘ s wife was a 35 woman; the SSA offset her account; therefore the SSA discriminated on the basis of gender.36 In fact, the SSA d“d not o‘‘set Pla“nt“‘‘ s w“‘e s account, but rather Pla“nt“‘‘ s own bene‘“ts. Pla“nt“‘‘ s argument to the contrary reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security, which the Court has already discussed. Moreover, Plaintiff s logic misses the mark. The SSA did not apply the Government Pension Offset because Pla“nt“‘‘ s w“‘e was a woman, or because he “s a man. In short, the GPO does not discriminate on the basis of gender. Therefore, the Court will apply rational basis review—not intermediate scrutiny—to the Government Pension Offset. Thus, to prevail, Plaintiff must show that the Government Pension Offset “s not rat“onally related to any le’“t“mate publ“c “nterest. 37 Plaintiff has not done that. Congress established the Government Pension Offset to prevent perceived potential windfalls. Without the Government Pension Offset, ret“red c“v“l servants could . . . rece“ve the ‘ull amount of both the spousal benefits and the government pensions to which they were entitled. Congress estimated the payment of unreduced spousal benefits to such individuals could cost the system an est“mated $190 m“ll“on “n 1979. 38 Ensuring the continued fiscal integrity of the Social Security program is a legitimate government interest.39 And Con’ress dec“s“on to reduce Social Security benefits for those already collecting government retirement benefits is rationally related to that interest. Thus, Pla“nt“‘‘ s equal protect“on challen’e ‘a“ls. For the foregoing reasons, Plaint“‘‘ s ob”ect“ons are OVERRULED, the Magistrate Jud’e s 35 Doc. 18 at 2. See id. ( Althou’h SHE was never a publ“c employee, HER pr“vate account was OFFSET by her husband s publ“c account, contrary to the 14th Amendment . . . . ) (emphas“s “n the or“’“nal). 37 Ondo, 795 F.3d at 608. 38 Heckler v. Matthews, 465 U.S. 728, 732 (1984). 39 See, e.g., Lyng v. UAW, 485 U.S. 360, 373 (1988). 36 -5- Case No. 1:17-cv-1959 Gwin, J. Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and the ALJ s dec“s“on “s AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: September 10, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
