Meyer v. Astrue

Last updated
Meyer v. Astrue
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case nameMaurice E. Meyer, III v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ArguedOctober 27, 2011
DecidedDecember 2, 2011
Citation(s)662 F.3d 700
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Diana Gribbon Motz, Robert Bruce King, Allyson Kay Duncan
Case opinions
MajorityMotz, joined by King, Duncan

Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2011), was a landmark Social Security Disability Insurance case argued in federal court, resolving a conflict within the circuit over the summary denial of requests for review when new evidence is submitted to the Appeals Council.

Contents

After suffering severe injuries in an accidental fall, Maurice Eugene Meyer applied for Social Security Disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim, noting that Meyer failed to provide an opinion from his treating physician. When Meyer requested review of his claim by the Appeals Council, he submitted a letter from his treating physician detailing the injuries and recommending significant restrictions on Meyer's activity. The Appeals Council made this letter part of the record but summarily denied Meyer's request for review; thus, the ALJ's decision denying benefits became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Meyer appealed, on the grounds that the Appeals Council did wrong in failing to articulate specific findings justifying its denial of his request for review. The court rejected this argument and ruled that the Appeals Council did not have to explain its reasoning when denying review of an ALJ decision, but because in this case the court could not determine if substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits, the court reversed and remanded.

Background

In December 2004, Meyer fell 25 feet out of a deer stand while hunting and suffered significant injuries. He fractured three lumbar vertebrae, which required reconstructive surgery. He also fractured his left wrist and injured his left shoulder, requiring additional surgery. At the time of his fall, Meyer was 51 years old and owned and operated a rural feed store.

On December 13, 2004, Dr. Byron Bailey, an attending neurosurgeon at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, performed Meyer's back surgery. On December 26, Dr. Bailey discharged Meyer from the hospital, and referred him for physical and occupational therapy. Dr. Bailey observed Meyer in clinic for post-surgical follow-up through the spring of 2005, and reviewed Meyer's post-operative progress through at least April 2006.

Following his surgery, Meyer underwent extensive physical therapy at the Rehabilitation Centers of Charleston, averaging between five and 10 visits per month until his discharge in June 2006. At that time, Dr. Bailey referred Meyer to the hospital's pain management clinic. Dr. Arthur R. Smith, an anesthesiologist, treated Meyer in clinic with various injections that provided Meyer "short-term relief" from his pain. In August 2007, however, Dr. Smith ceased the injections, acknowledging that they failed to provide Meyer with any "long-term benefit."

On July 13, 2005, Meyer filed a claim for disability insurance benefits with the Social Security Administration.

Meyer’s Appeal Process

After both his initial claim and request for reconsideration were denied, Meyer requested a hearing. [1] The ALJ heard Meyer's claim and issued an unfavorable decision on June 5, 2008. In his opinion, the ALJ followed the federal regulations governing administrative review of Social Security Disability claims, proceeding through the customary five-step sequential analysis.

Applying the first three steps, the ALJ determined that Meyer (1) had not engaged in "substantial gainful activity" since the date of his accident, (2) had the "severe impairments" of degenerative disc disease and a history of left wrist injury, but (3) did not have an impairment "that meets or medically equals" an impairment that the federal regulations define as disabling.

As the regulations instruct, the ALJ evaluated Meyer's "residual functional capacity" before proceeding to step four. The ALJ concluded that Meyer could perform "the full range" of "light work," which involves "lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds," and "a good deal of walking or standing, or . . . sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls." In reaching these conclusions, the ALJ found Meyer's assertion that "he suffered from constant, unrelenting" pain not entirely "credible" because it was "inconsistent with the medical evidence of record," including Meyer's "reports to his physicians, and the treatment sought and received."

The ALJ relied on evidence that between August 2005 and June 2006, Meyer reported improvements in his condition, decreased pain, and less use of pain medication, and clinical observations that during this time Meyer was "in no apparent distress" and appeared "generally healthy." The ALJ also cited a June 2006 one-page physical therapy discharge form noting that Meyer "was able to perform his activities of daily living independently; had no work/recreational restrictions; and could ambulate independently."

Further, the ALJ considered Meyer's testimony that he was able to drive and assist his wife in caring for their horses and dog, and evidence suggesting that Meyer continued, although to a lesser degree, to ride horseback and operate his tractor. The ALJ emphasized that "[g]iven the claimant’s allegations of totally disabling symptoms, one might expect to see some indication in the treatment records of restrictions placed on the claimant by a treating physician," yet a "review of the records . . . reveals no [such] restrictions."

Meyer had asserted before the ALJ that although he sought opinions from Dr. Bailey and Dr. Smith, his treating physicians, it was their policy not to provide such opinion evidence in these types of proceedings. Meyer did submit the findings of Dr. Barry Weissglass, who, at Meyer's request, performed an independent occupational evaluation of Meyer in November 2007. Dr. Weissglass opined that Meyer was incapable of performing the functions of light work and recommended restrictions on his activities that were consistent with that finding, including that Meyer not lift more than 10 pounds and refrain from extended sitting or standing.

However, the ALJ accorded Dr. Weissglass's opinion "only minimal evidentiary weight as it is inconsistent with the other evidence of record," i.e., that detailed above. Proceeding to step four of the analysis, the ALJ concluded that Meyer was unable to perform his past relevant work of operating a rural feed store or being a marine machinist.

At the fifth and final step, the ALJ considered Meyer's residual functional capacity for light work, his age of 51 years, and his "limited education," and, based on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, which take administrative notice of the availability of job types in the national economy, concluded that Meyer was not disabled. After issuance of the ALJ decision on June 5, 2008, Meyer timely sought review by the Appeals Council. [2]

With his request for review, Meyer submitted new evidence not before the ALJ, including an opinion letter from his treating physician, Dr. Bailey, dated August 18, 2008. In the letter, Dr. Bailey described Meyer's back injury and surgery and explained that Meyer's "post-operative course has been complicated by chronic, debilitating back pain which was anticipated due to the magnitude of his injury." Dr. Bailey opined that Meyer's "long term restrictions include no lifting greater than 10 pounds, avoid bending, stooping, squatting, and no sitting, standing or walking for more than 30 minutes without rest periods." He explained that Meyer "will continue to require frequent follow-up and medical management" and "will [likely] require further surgical intervention in the future." At the close of his letter, Dr. Bailey noted his "agreement with the majority of [Dr. Weissglass’s] findings." On October 24, 2008, the Appeals Council denied Meyer's request for review. In doing so, the Appeals Council noted that it made Dr. Bailey's letter a part of the record. But in the Notice of Appeals Council Action, the Appeals Council "found that this information does not provide a basis for changing the [ALJ]’s decision" and so "the [ALJ]’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security in [Meyer’s] case." Meyer then filed this action.

A magistrate judge recommended affirmance of the Commissioner's decision, concluding, inter alia, that Dr. Bailey's letter should be accorded only minimal weight because he was not one of Meyer's treating physicians. Meyer objected to the magistrate's recommendation but the district court entered a final order affirming the Commissioner's decision. Meyer timely noted this appeal. As the Appeals Council properly informed Meyer, because it denied review, the decision of the ALJ became "the final decision of the [Commissioner]." We uphold the factual findings underpinning the Commissioner's final decision "if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard." In making this determination, we "review the record as a whole" including any new evidence that the Appeals Council "specifically incorporated. In the end, Judge Dana L. Christensen of the United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division agreed with Judge Lynch and upheld the magistrate's decision and denied Meyer's claim. [3]

Related Research Articles

Robert William Latimer is a Canadian canola and wheat farmer who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his daughter Tracy. This case sparked a national controversy on the definition and ethics of euthanasia as well as the rights of people with disabilities, and led to two Supreme Court decisions, R. v. Latimer (1997), on section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and later R. v. Latimer (2001), on cruel and unusual punishments under section 12 of the Charter. Latimer was released on day parole in March 2008 and was granted full parole in December 2010.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law.

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that groups could sue to challenge their inclusion on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. The decision was fractured on its reasoning, with each of the Justices in the majority writing separate opinions.

Social Security Disability Insurance is a payroll tax-funded federal insurance program of the United States government. It is managed by the Social Security Administration and designed to provide monthly benefits to people who have a medically determinable disability that restricts their ability to be employed. SSDI does not provide partial or temporary benefits but rather pays only full benefits and only pays benefits in cases in which the disability is "expected to last at least one year or result in death." Relative to disability programs in other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the SSDI program in the United States has strict requirements regarding eligibility.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9-0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act.

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies, which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.

Michael J. Astrue American poet

Michael James Astrue is an American lawyer and, under the pen name A. M. Juster, a poet and critic. He served as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration from 2007 to 2013. Astrue was Poetry Editor of First Things from 2018 to 2020, and became Poetry Editor of Plough Quarterly in 2020.

Richard E. "Rick" Dutrow Jr. is an American thoroughbred racehorse trainer. He is currently serving a ten-year suspension administered by the racing commission in New York.

Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that a compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, even if likely to produce evidence of a crime.

James L. Dennis is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with chambers in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission (VWC) is an agency of the U.S. state of Virginia that oversees the resolution of workers' compensation claims brought in that state, in accordance with the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. Its decisions may be appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals. The Commission is led by a Senior Leadership team consisting of three Commissioners, an Executive Director and a Chief Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioners are appointed by the Virginia General Assembly and serve staggered six-year terms. Honorable Robert A. Rapaport, Honorable Wesley G. Marshall and Honorable R. Ferrell Newman currently serve as Commissioners. The Commissioners elect a Chairman for a term of three years. Commissioner Rapaport currently serves as Chairman. Ms. Evelyn McGill is the Commission’s Executive Director and Honorable James J. Szablewicz is the Commission’s Chief Deputy Commissioner. The Commission is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, and has offices and hearing locations at various places around the state.

2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541 (2012), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that children conceived after a parent's death are not entitled to Social Security Survivors benefits if the laws in the state that the parent's will was signed in forbid it. The case was a unanimous decision.

Bahrain health worker trials Series of legal cases in Bahrain

The Bahrain health worker trials were a series of legal cases in which forty-eight doctors, nurses, and dentists faced charges for their actions during the Bahraini uprising of 2011. In September 2011, twenty of the health workers were convicted by a military court of felonies including "stockpiling weapons" and "plotting to overthrow the government". The remaining twenty-eight were charged with misdemeanors and tried separately. The following month, the felony sentences were overturned, and it was announced that the defendants would be retried by a civilian court. Retrials began in March 2012, but were postponed until June 14. Convictions against nine of the defendants were quashed and reduced against another nine. The Court of Cassation upheld the sentences against the remaining nine on 1 October.

<i>Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake</i> Significant Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim opinion

Nieves-Rodriguez vs. Peake is a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case that dealt with the adequacy and weighing of medical opinions.

John K. Bush American judge

John Kenneth Bush is an American attorney and United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Bush graduated from Harvard Law School and practiced in Washington, D.C. and Louisville, Kentucky, where he served as president of the local branch of the Federalist Society. In 2017, he was nominated to a seat on the Sixth Circuit by President Donald Trump. During his confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Bush had authored pseudonymous blog posts in which he disparaged gay rights, compared abortion to slavery, and cited alt-right websites promoting birtherism and other false right-wing conspiracy theories. He was confirmed in the Senate by the Republican majority on a party-line vote of 51–47 in July 2017.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

References

  1. ↑ Meyer v. Astrue, 662F.3d700 ( 4th Cir. 2011).
  2. ↑ Wendt, Robertson. "Fourth Circuit Rules on New Evidence Submitted to Appeals Council". Law Offices of Robertson Wendt. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
  3. ↑ Christensen, Dana. "Meyer v. Astrue, Dist. Court, D. Montana 2013". Google Scholar. Retrieved 24 June 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.