Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------X
Baiju Gohil,
Plaintiff,
- against -
Commissioner of the United States
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
Order
No. 24-cv-8209(KAM)
Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Judge:
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	a 	motion 	for 	judgment 	on 	the
pleadings 	filed 	by 	defendant 	Commissioner 	of 	the 	United 	States
Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), (ECF No. 19),
after 	plaintiff 	Baiju 	Gohil 	commenced 	this 	action 	to 	appeal 	the
Commissioner’s 	denial 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	request 	for 	a 	waiver 	of
recovery of an overpayment of disability insurance benefits, (ECF
No. 1).
Because 	Plaintiff’s 	appeal 	is 	wholly 	without 	merit 	(and
arguably 	frivolous), 	it 	can 	be 	resolved 	succinctly. 	For 	the
reasons explained below, the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is
AFFIRMED.
Case 2:24-cv-08209-KAM Document 22 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, 	a 	physician 	who 	now 	operates 	his 	own 	hair
restoration clinic and has substantial assets (including over one
million 	dollars 	in 	investments 	and 	three 	luxury 	cars 	for 	his
personal 	use), 	(ECF 	No. 	21 	at 	4), 	challenges 	the 	Commissioner’s
final decision1 that he must repay overpaid disability benefits he
received between January 2017 and June 2018 due to a kidney disease
disability, (ECF Nos. 1 at 1, 21 at 3). 	Plaintiff presents three
arguments 	that 	he 	should 	be 	entitled 	to 	a 	waiver 	of 	overpayments
the Commissioner determined that he must repay: (i) that “he never
received written or verbal guidance that he needed to report work
activity,” (ECF No. 21 at 3); (ii) that “he received no explanation
of 	how 	the 	overpayment 	was 	calculated,” 	(id. 	at 	3-4); 	and 	(iii)
“that, if forced to repay the overpayment, it would be a financial
burden on him.” 	(Id. at 4.)
All three of Plaintiff’s arguments are refuted by Plaintiff’s
own 	factual 	admissions 	in 	the 	parties’ 	joint 	stipulation. 	(ECF
No. 21.) 	First, Plaintiff admits that the Commissioner’s letters
on April 7, 2015 and November 22, 2017 “advised him of his duty to
report 	changes 	in 	work 	status.” 	(ECF 	No. 	21 	at 	1-2.) 	Second,
Plaintiff admits that “[i]n letter dated July 29, 2020, the agency
1 	The 	parties 	stipulate 	that 	the 	Commissioner’s 	April 	11, 	2024 	“unfavorable
decision, 	finding 	that 	Plaintiff 	had 	been 	overpaid 	and 	did 	not 	qualify 	for
waiver of the overpayment because he was not without fault in creating it,”
constituted a final decision. 	(ECF No. 21 at 4-5.)
Case 2:24-cv-08209-KAM Document 22 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
provided 	a 	specific 	dollar 	breakdown 	of 	the 	overpaid 	benefits 	by
month.” 	(Id. 	at 	3.) 	Third, 	Plaintiff’s 	argument 	that 	repayment
“would be a financial burden,” (id. at 4), is meritless given the
repayment 	amount 	($42,018.10) 	and 	payment 	plan 	($500 	per 	month),
(ECF No. 15 at 22), and given Plaintiff’s significant wealth, which
includes over one million dollars of investments and three luxury
cars (a Hummer, a Mercedes, and a Tesla) for personal use. 	(ECF
No. 21 at 4.)
Plaintiff’s 	arguments 	fall 	far 	short 	of 	the 	standard 	for
remand of a decision by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). 	When
a 	plaintiff 	was 	overpaid 	disability 	benefits, 	the 	“[p]laintiff
bears 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	he 	is 	entitled 	to 	a 	waiver” 	of
repayment. 	Feuer v. Astrue, No. 06-cv-13478, 2008 WL 4755554, at
*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2008) (citation omitted). 	“A court must not
disturb 	the 	Commissioner's 	final 	decision 	if 	correct 	legal
standards 	were 	applied 	and 	substantial 	evidence 	supports 	the
decision.” 	Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Here, 	Plaintiff’s 	admissions 	establish 	that 	the 	overpayment
was Plaintiff’s own fault because he failed to report to the Social
Security 	Administration 	the 	change 	in 	his 	work 	status 	(i.e. 	his
opening 	a 	hair 	restoration 	clinic) 	despite 	being 	advised 	by 	the
Commissioner multiple times that he must do so. 	(ECF No. 21 at 1-
2.) 	Even 	if, 	arguendo, 	Plaintiff’s 	failure 	to 	report 	his 	change
in 	work 	status 	was 	an 	honest 	mistake, 	“an 	honest 	mistake 	may 	be
Case 2:24-cv-08209-KAM Document 22 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
sufficient 	to 	constitute 	fault” 	for 	overpayment 	of 	disability
benefits. 	Ctr. 	v. 	Schweiker, 	704 	F.2d 	678, 	680 	(2d 	Cir. 	1983).
Moreover, 	the 	Second 	Circuit 	has 	rejected 	claims 	by 	recipients
“that 	[they] 	did 	not 	receive 	th[e] 	notice” 	because 	the 	“lack 	of
... knowledge on the part of [the recipient] would not excuse him
from 	his 	obligation 	to 	reimburse.” 	Id. 	(emphasis 	added). 	Here,
Plaintiff 	is 	at 	fault 	because 	he 	“accept[ed] 	a 	payment 	which 	he
knew 	or 	could 	have 	been 	expected 	to 	know 	was 	incorrect.” 	Feuer,
2008 WL 4755554, at *3 (quoting Schweiker, 704 F.2d at 680). 	The
Court 	finds 	the 	Commissioner’s 	decision 	applied 	correct 	legal
standards and is supported by substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
Because 	the 	Commissioner’s 	final 	decision 	is 	well-supported
and 	Plaintiff’s 	arguments 	to 	the 	contrary 	are 	meritless, 	the
Commissioner’s 	motion 	for 	judgment 	on 	the 	pleadings 	is 	GRANTED,
and 	the 	Commissioner’s 	final 	decision 	is 	AFFIRMED. 	The 	Clerk 	is
respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant,
Commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration,
and to close this case.
So ordered.
Dated: 	March 3, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
_______________________________
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Case 2:24-cv-08209-KAM Document 22 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>