FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELIA V. MANITSAS, No. 12-16887
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-02691-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Celia Manitsas appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her request that the Social
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Security Administration waive recovery of overpaid disability insurance benefits.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Anderson v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1990). We must affirm the
Commissioner’s refusal to waive an overpayment of benefits if it is supported by
substantial evidence and if the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard. Id.
Substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding that
Manitsas was “not without fault” and therefore did not qualify for a waiver of
overpayment under 42 U.S.C. § 404(b) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.507. See McCarthy v.
Apfel, 221 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000). Manitsas applied for a waiver, but she
did not in addition request reconsideration of the initial overpayment determination
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.502a(f)-(h). Accordingly, the ALJ applied a correct
legal standard in not considering the validity of the overpayment determination
itself. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.905 (providing that initial determination is binding if
individual does not request reconsideration).
Manitsas contends that the ALJ erred in denying her request to reopen the
overpayment determination because she was entitled to tolling under Social
Security Ruling 91-5p. We affirm the district court’s holding that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the ALJ’s denial. The denial of the request to
2
reopen was a non-reviewable administrative action. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.903(l);
Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, Manitsas did
not present a colorable due process claim. See Klemm, 543 F3d at 1144-45.
AFFIRMED.
3