LANTOS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAMES LANTOS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00108-JAW
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of Social Security, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiff James Lantos brings claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA) 	against 	Frank 	Bisignano, 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	the 	Social 	Security
Administration (the Commissioner), alleging that the Commissioner wrongfully
terminated his disability benefits and seeking $171 million in damages. Pet’r’s 1ST
Am. Compl. for Relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (ECF No. 9) (First Am.
Compl.). 	On June 2, 2025 the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Lantos’s
complaint. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 13).
On June 18, 2025, Mr. Lantos filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint. Pl’s Opposed Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 16) (Mot.
for Leave.). 	The Commissioner opposed the motion. 	Def.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Leave
(ECF No. 17) (Def.’s Opp’n). On July 8, 2025, Mr. Lantos replied. Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s
Opp’n to his Mot. for Leave (ECF No. 18) (Pl.’s Reply).
On July 23, 2025, Mr. Lantos responded to the Commissioner’s motion to
dismiss. 	Pl’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) (Pl.’s Opp’n). 	On August
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 39 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
5, 2025, the Commissioner replied. Def.’s Reply in Support of its Mot. to Dismiss (ECF
No. 22) (Def.’s Reply). 	On August 12, 2025, Mr. Lantos filed a sur-reply. 	Pl.’s Sur-
Reply to Def.’s Reply in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) (Pl’s Sur-Reply).
On 	October 	21, 	2025, 	the 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	issued 	her
recommended decision, recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s
motion to dismiss, deny Mr. Lantos’s motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, and dismiss Mr. Lantos’s amended complaint. Recommended Decision on
Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. to Am. (ECF No. 28) (Recommended Decision). Mr. Lantos
objected on November 3, 2025. Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Recommended Decision (ECF No.
29) (Pl.’s Obj.). On November 13, 2025, the Commissioner responded. Resp. to Obj.
to Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 31) (Def.’s
Resp. to Pl.’s Obj.). 	On November 14, 2025, Mr. Lantos filed a sur-reply. 	Pl.’s Sur-
Reply to Gov’t’s Resp. to Objs. to Recommended Decision (ECF No. 34) (Pl.’s Sur-Reply
to Recommended Decision). 	The Commissioner responded to the sur-reply on
November 18, 2025. 	Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s Sur-Reply (ECF No. 35). 	On December 6,
2025, the Court granted Mr. Lantos previously filed request to file a sur-rebuttal.
Order (ECF No. 38). 	Mr. Lantos’s sur-rebuttal was filed with the Court along with
his motion for leave to file the sur-rebuttal. 	See Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File Sur-
Rebuttal at 9-13 (ECF No. 36).
The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record, and made a de novo determination of all
matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision. 	The Court concurs with the
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 39 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
recommendations 	of 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	his
Recommended Decision.
In her Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge observed that 28 U.S.C.
§ 405(h) 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.”
Recommended Decision at 1-2. The Magistrate Judge cited significant caselaw that
supported her conclusion that Mr. Lantos may not maintain his FTCA claim in this
case. 	Id. at 2. 	Although in his objection, subsequent attachments, sur-reply, Mr.
Lantos stresses his view that § 405(h) does not bar his FTCA lawsuit, the Court
reviewed the caselaw on this issue and concludes that the vast weight of legal
authority stands against Mr. Lantos.
Nor is the Court convinced that Mr. Lantos is correct when he asserts that his
FTCA lawsuit does not arise under the Social Security Act. 	As the Respondent has
pointed out, the “arising under” language encompasses situations, where, as here, a
litigant’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a benefits determination. 	On
August 19, 2025, the First Circuit, addressing the “arising under” language of
§ 405(h), wrote that the issue is whether the claims are “independent” or “separate”
from the benefits determinations or whether they are “inextricably intertwined” with
them. 	Hosp. Amerimed Cancun S.A. de C V v. Martin’s Point Health Care, Inc.149
F.4th 82, 92 (1st Cir. 2025). 	As Mr. Lantos’s complaint claims that the Respondent
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 39 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
“wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s Social Security Disability benefits,” First Am.
Comp. at 2, his FTCA claims are necessarily “inextricably intertwined” with the
Respondent’s benefit determinations.
For the reasons contained in the Recommended Decision and this Order, the
Court affirms the Recommended Decision on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Amend
(ECF No. 28). It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Amend (ECF No. 28) is hereby
AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED; Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; and Mr. Lantos’s amended complaint,
Petitioner’s 1ST Amended Complaint for Relief Under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(ECF No 9), is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of January, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-00108-JAW Document 39 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>