Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

Class actions have long played a critical role in safeguarding and expanding the rights of Social Security claimants. In a recent case, LNP v. O’Malley, SSA seeks to curtail access to this vital form of relief. NOSSCR has joined the fight, filing an amicus brief to support the plaintiff and advocating for broad-based policy reforms through class action litigation.

The Case: Challenging Unlawful Benefit Reductions

The case, LNP v. O’Malley,[1] involves a challenge to SSA’s application of the “family maximum” formula under 42 U.S.C. § 403. The plaintiff, representing himself and others similarly situated, seeks to certify a nationwide class dating back to 1999. He contends SSA improperly calculated child insurance benefits using theoretical figures like the primary insurance amount (PIA) instead of actual payment amounts, such as the reduced Retirement Insurance Benefit (RIB).[2] This practice, he argues, led to unjust benefit reductions for his children and violated both statutory and regulatory mandates.

On November 15, 2024, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff held a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, to consider two pivotal motions: the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and SSA’s motion to dismiss. Judge Nachmanoff granted NOSSCR permission to file an amicus brief and provide oral arguments supporting the plaintiff.

NOSSCR’s Advocacy: The Power of Class Actions

In its brief, NOSSCR highlighted the historical significance of class actions in achieving justice for Social Security claimants. Landmark cases such as Califano v. Yamasaki,[3] City of New York v. Heckler,[4] and Sullivan v. Zebley,[5] illustrate how class actions have shaped SSA policies, ensured procedural fairness, and expanded protections for claimants nationwide. These cases have collectively led to policy changes that continue to benefit hundreds of thousands of Social Security recipients.

NOSSCR underscored the Social Security Act’s broad and remedial nature, arguing that its provisions are intended to favor beneficiaries. The brief critiqued SSA’s restrictive position on class relief and emphasized the impracticality of requiring individual joinder for large groups of claimants—particularly given the widespread impact of SSA policies.

Key Legal Arguments

NOSSCR’s brief focused on three key points:

1. Impracticality of Joinder: Drawing on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), NOSSCR argued that the size and geographic dispersion of the proposed class—potentially involving thousands of individuals—make joinder impractical, reinforcing the need for class certification.
2. Equitable Tolling: The brief highlighted SSA’s reliance on secret policies and unpublished manuals (POMS), which misled claimants and warranted waivers of administrative exhaustion requirements.
3. Venue and Jurisdiction: NOSSCR argued that under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), class certification does not require every class member to reside in the district where the case is filed. Courts have consistently allowed nationwide class actions where only the named plaintiff resides in the filing district.

Awaiting a Decision

Judge Nachmanoff took both motions under advisement and provided no timeline for a decision. The outcome of this case could significantly impact the future of class action litigation for Social Security claimants.

NOSSCR remains committed to advocating for broad relief and preserving access to justice for vulnerable populations. Attorneys David Camp, Tom Krause, and Bruce Billman represent NOSSCR as amicus, while Ira Kasdan (a NOSSCR member) and Damon Suden of Kelley Drye represent the plaintiff, LNP.

We will monitor this case closely and provide updates as developments unfold.

Stay informed with NOSSCR as we continue to fight for the rights of Social Security representatives and their clients.

---

[1] No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN (E.D. Va., filed July 9, 2024). The Fourth Circuit previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of LNP’s claim due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. L.N.P. v. Kijakazi, 64 F.4th 577, 588 (4th Cir. 2023).

[2] 42 U.S.C. § 403; 20 C.F.R. § 404.403.

[3] 442 U.S. 682 (1979).

[4] 476 U.S. 467 (1986).

[5] 493 U.S. 521 (1990).