Skip to main content

MCLEES v. SAUL (2020)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Christopher MCLEES Plaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration Defendant - Appellee

No. 20-1828

Decided: November 12, 2020

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. Christopher McLees, Pro Se Nicholas P. Llewellyn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, Sean Stewart, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee


Christopher McLees appeals the district court's 1 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, 108 S.Ct. 586, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988) (per curiam) (it is well settled rule that only parties to lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal adverse judgment).


Copied to clipboard