LANTOS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES LANTOS, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	)
) 	No. 2:25-cv-00108-JAW
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of 	)
Social Security, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO AMEND
In his pro se complaint, James Lantos brings claims under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA) against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
based on allegations that the Commissioner wrongfully terminated his disability
benefits; 	he 	seeks 	$171 	million 	in 	damages. 	See 	First 	Amended 	Complaint
(ECF No. 9).
The Commissioner moves to dismiss Lantos’s complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing, among other things, that his claims are precluded
by Social Security Act, which provides the exclusive means of challenging a denial of
benefits. 	See 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	(ECF No. 13) 	at 	9-10. 	Lantos 	opposes 	the
Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 19, and seeks permission to amend
his complaint to substitute the United States as the Defendant rather than the
Commissioner, see Motion to Amend (ECF No. 16).
Regardless 	of 	whether 	the 	Commissioner 	or 	the 	United 	States 	is 	the
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 28 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendant, the Commissioner is correct that the Lantos’s FTCA claims are barred by
28 U.S.C. § 405(h), which provides that “[n]o action against the United States, the
Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought
under [the FTCA] to recover on any claim arising under” the subchapter of the Social
Security Act relating to the payment of, among other things, disability insurance
benefits. 	See Crosby v. Social Sec. Admin., No. 22-cv-234-SE, 2022 WL 3544370,
at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 18, 2022) (dismissing a plaintiff’s FTCA claims based on the
alleged wrongful termination of his disability benefits after concluding such claims
were barred by section 405(h)); McKenna v. Comm’r of Social Sec., No. 97-6466,
1998 WL 466557, at *2 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Social Security Act precludes any claim
under the [FTCA] for the wrongful withholding of benefits.”); see also Schweiker v.
Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424-29 (1988) (holding that money damages are not available
against Social Security “officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct that leads
to the wrongful denial of benefits”).
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DENY Lantos’s motion to amend his
complaint, GRANT the Commissioner’s motion, and DISMISS Lantos’s complaint.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s 	report 	or proposed 	findings 	or 	recommended 	decisions 	entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District
Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 28 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s
order.
Dated: October 21, 2025
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 28 Filed 10/21/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>