14.  Plaintiff Cheryl Martin is 65 years old, and resides in the Harold area of Floyd  County, Kentucky.  The Affidavit of Plaintiff Cheryl Martin, setting forth the relevant facts, is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.    15.  Plaintiff Cheryl Martin retained Stanville (Floyd County) attorney Eric C. Conn to  represent her in her claim for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits.   16.  Plaintiff Cheryl Martin was awarded SSD benefits on or about November 3, 2009,  as a result of serious injuries she sustained in an automobile accident.   17.  On or about May 22, 2015, she received a letter from the Social Security  Administration suspending her benefits.  The letter indicated that her benefits were suspended  because “there was reason to believe fraud was involved in certain cases including evidence from  Bradley Adkins, Ph.D., Srinivas Ammisetty, M.D., Frederic Huffnagle, M.D., or David P. Herr,  D.O.”  A redacted copy of the letter from the Social Security Administration is attached hereto as  Exhibit B.   18.  On or about May 22, 2015, Plaintiff Cheryl Martin also received a “Notice of  Appeals Council Action”, in which she was advised that Social Security was redetermining her  disability case without evidence from Frederic Huffnagle, M.D.  She was advised that she had  ten (10) days to submit additional evidence to the Appeals Council, after which her case would  be remanded to an Administrative Law Judge to await a new hearing, during which time she  Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 4 of 14 - Page ID#: 4 5  would receive no Social Security Disability payments.1  A redacted copy of the Notice of  Appeals Council Action sent to Plaintiff Cheryl Martin is attached hereto as Exhibit C.   19.  Prior to receiving her disability benefits, Plaintiff Cheryl Martin had worked for  approximately 40 years.   20.  Until now, Plaintiff Cheryl Martin had been receiving approximately $1,100.00  per month in Social Security Disability benefits.   21.  Plaintiff Cheryl Martin was diagnosed with lung cancer after she began receiving  her benefits.  She currently has fourth-stage cancer, which has metastasized to her lymph nodes,  and she has been advised that her prognosis is poor, with approximately a five percent chance of  surviving her cancerous condition.   22.  In order to combat her cancer, Plaintiff Cheryl Martin is prescribed approximately  22 medications, the monthly out-of-pocket expenses for which exceed $600.00.   23.  Plaintiff Cheryl Martin does not believe that she can afford her necessary  medications without the $1,100.00 per month that she is receiving from Social Security  Disability.   24.  Due to the severity of her condition, the immediate loss of benefits and inability  to pay for her medications will create an imminent threat of death for the Plaintiff.   25.  Due to the severity of her condition, the Plaintiff cannot go without her  medications for an indeterminate period of time waiting for a hearing to be scheduled by the  Social Security Administration.  1 The fax number provided on the “Notice of Appeals Council Action” was not, as of the date of this filing a  working number, and efforts to send faxes to the number were unsuccessful.   Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 5 of 14 - Page ID#: 5 6  26.  Plaintiff Robert Martin is 51 years old, and resides in the Wayland area of Floyd  County, Kentucky.  The Affidavit of Plaintiff Robert Martin, setting forth the relevant facts, is  attached hereto as Exhibit D.    27.  Plaintiff Robert Martin retained Stanville (Floyd County) attorney Eric C. Conn to  represent him in his claim for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits.   28.  Plaintiff Robert Martin was awarded SSD benefits on or about June 11, 2009, as a  result of serious injuries he sustained in an automobile accident.   29.  On or about May 19, 2015, he received a letter from the Social Security  Administration suspending his benefits.  The letter indicated that his benefits were suspended  because “there was reason to believe fraud was involved in certain cases including evidence from  Bradley Adkins, Ph.D., Srinivas Ammisetty, M.D., Frederic Huffnagle, M.D., or David P. Herr,  D.O.”  A redacted copy of the letter from the Social Security Administration is attached hereto as  Exhibit E.   30.  On or about May 22, 2015, Plaintiff Robert Martin also received a “Notice of  Appeals Council Action”, in which he was advised that Social Security was redetermining his  disability case without evidence from Frederic Huffnagle, M.D.  He was advised that he had ten  (10) days to submit additional evidence to the Appeals Council, after which his case would be  remanded to an Administrative Law Judge to await a new hearing, during which time she would  receive no Social Security Disability payments. A redacted copy of the Notice of Appeals  Council Action sent to Plaintiff Robert Martin is attached hereto as Exhibit F.  Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 6 of 14 - Page ID#: 6 7   31.  Until now, Plaintiff Robert Martin had been receiving approximately $1,400.00  per month in Social Security Disability benefits.   32.  Plaintiff Robert Martin was diagnosed with colon cancer after he began receiving  his benefits.  He had a portion of his colon removed, and has also been diagnosed with a tumor in  his right lung.   33.  Plaintiff Robert Martin is on Medicare, and has been advised that the suspension  of his benefits may cause him to lose his medical coverage.   34.  Plaintiff Robert Martin relies upon Social Security Disability funds to pay for his  out of pocket medical expenses.   35.  Plaintiff Robert Martin does not have any source of income other than his  benefits.  Given his dire economic situation, if his benefits are suspended Plaintiff Robert Martin  believes that he will become homeless, as he cannot afford his home payment without his  benefits.   36.   Due to the severity of his medical condition, the immediate loss of benefits and  inability to pay for his medications will create an imminent threat that his condition will worsen,  or that he could potentially succumb to his illness.   37.  Due to the severity of his medical and economic conditions, the Plaintiff cannot  go without his medications for an indeterminate period of time waiting for a hearing to be  scheduled by the Social Security Administration.  38.  The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (3) on  behalf of themselves and the following Class:  Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 7 of 14 - Page ID#: 7 8  All persons, formerly clients of Eric C. Conn, who were receiving Social Security  Disability (SSD) benefits during or prior to May 2015, and whose benefits are  being suspended, without a pre-suspension hearing, by the Social Security  Administration based on the fact that evidence was provided during the persons’  original disability cases by one or all of the following medical witnesses: Bradley  Adkins, Ph.D; Srinivas Ammisetty, M.D.; Frederic Huffnagle, M.D.; David Herr,  44.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.   45.  The allegations set forth herein on behalf of the Plaintiffs, both individually and  on behalf of the Class, present actual controversies pursuant to Article III of the United States  Constitution.   46.  The actual controversies set forth herein are ripe for adjudication.   47.  The Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the Class, have legally  cognizable interests in the outcome of the case and are entitled to relief herein.   48.  As set forth herein, the Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the class,  seek a declaratory judgment from this Court that the Defendant’s actions violated: (i) the Social  Security Act and regulations promulgated thereunder; (ii) the Due Process Clause of the United  States Constitution; and (iii) the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitutuib,   49.  The following paragraphs set forth the essence of the Plaintiffs’ claims, and the  Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend as necessary.  Social Security Act & Regulations Promulgated Thereunder  42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq   50.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.  Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 10 of 14 - Page ID#: 10 11   51.  The Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the Class, seek a declaratory  judgment from this Court that the Defendant’s actions described herein violated the Social  Security Act and relevant regulations promulgated thereunder.    52.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(u), the Social Security Commissioner shall only  redetermine a case “if there is a reason to believe that fraud or other fault was involved in the  application.”   53.  There is no evidence that Plaintiffs knew about, or participated in any alleged  fraud, and yet Social Security has taken the draconian step of suspending their benefits,  potentially for a year or more while awaiting a new ALJ hearing, without providing any  opportunity to rebut that the medical evidence in their record is fraudulent and inaccurate.     54.  Defendant has acted by removing medical evidence from Plaintiffs’ records and  placing the extremely difficult burden of obtaining new medical evidence based on the time of  the original disability finding within ten days or have their cases remanded for an ALJ hearing,  during which time they will receive no benefits.    55.     As such, Defendant is proposing to make a new decision based on evidence not  in the record, and pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.992, Defendant is therefore required to provide  Plaintiffs with notice of the proposed action and right to a hearing before further action is taken.   56.  Defendant is taking the position that Plaintiffs’ disability claims were decided in  error and in effect their eligibility “does not exist” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 423.   Therefore, in accordance with that provision, Plaintiffs are entitled to continue receiving benefits  until such time that their claims are properly redetermined.   Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 11 of 14 - Page ID#: 11 12  Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution   57.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.    58.  The Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the Class, seek a declaratory  judgment from this Court that the Defendant’s actions described herein violated the Due Process  Clause of the United States Constitution.    59.  Plaintiffs’ claims for Social Security Disability benefits are based on payments  Plaintiffs made over the course of their working lives.  Plaintiffs therefore have a property  interest in these benefits that are protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States  Constitution.   60.  At a minimum, Due Process requires that Plaintiffs be afforded adequate notice  and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of their protected interest.     61.  Although Plaintiffs eligibility for SSD benefits is not initially based on financial  need, the immediate suspension of these benefits will deprived them of the necessities of life.     62.  For the named Plaintiffs here, and for many other SSD recipients, these benefits  are often their only source of income, and typically provide a standard of living below the federal  poverty line.    63.  Conversely, providing an opportunity to be heard prior to suspending these  benefits would cause Defendant little administrative burden, as they will have to provide these  same hearings at a later time.     64.  Providing pre-suspension hearings will not substantially fiscally burden  Defendant, as any later determination of ineligibility will result in overpayments which Plaintiffs  will be required to repay.  Case: 7:15-cv-00046-ART-HAI   Doc #: 1   Filed: 05/30/15   Page: 12 of 14 - Page ID#: 12 13   65.  Defendant has also violated Plaintiffs due process rights by failing to follow the  Social Security Act and regulations promulgated thereunder as outlined above.  Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution   66.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.   67.  The Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the Class, seek a declaratory  judgment from this Court that the Defendant’s actions described herein violated the Equal  Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.    68.  The Plaintiffs are all members of a class of persons receiving Social Security  Disability benefits.   69.  The Defendant has suspended the Plaintiffs’ benefits without a pre-suspension  hearing, allegedly on the basis of fraudulent activity on the part of Eric C. Conn and the  enumerated medical witnesses.   70.  The Defendant has not alleged any wrongdoing by the Plaintiffs.   71.  Choosing to suspend the benefits only for these named Plaintiffs, without a pre- suspension hearing, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.  DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202  