Opinion
Cases No. 2:03-CV-0736 TS
May 10, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL OF THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiff Edward J. Schuler, filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under the Social Security Act. This matter came before Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) from a referral by Judge Ted Stewart. The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and finds oral argument would not be helpful. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the decision of the Commission. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Mr. Schuler's appeal be denied.
See 42 U.S.C. § 401-433.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to determining whether substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the factual findings, and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion". Evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence or if it constitutes mere conclusion. The court may neither re-weigh the evidence nor substitute its discretion for that of the Commissioner. Where the evidence as a whole can support either the agency's decision or an award of benefits, the agency's decision must be affirmed.
See Castellano v. Secretary of Health Human Services, 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1992); Hamilton v. Secretary of Health Human Services, 961 F.2d 1495, 1497-98 (10 Cir. 1992); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1981).
See Hamilton, 961 F.2d at 1498.
See Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992).
See Hinkle v. Apfel, 132 F.3d 1349, 1351 (10th Cir. 1997); Kelly v. Chater, 62 F.3d 335, 337 (10th Cir. 1995).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 2, 2003 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed without payment of fees.See Order to Proceed IFF, docket no. 2, filed September 2, 2003. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of the Commissioner's decision and asked the Court to "DIRECT Defendant to recompute Plaintiff's earnings records." Complaint docket no. 3.
Previously, Mr. Schuler was found to be under a disability for purposes of supplemental security income commencing on October 20, 1988. (Tr. 17). Before the ALJ, Plaintiff sought a determination of whether he was insured for DIB at his alleged onset of disability on October 20, 1988. (Tr. 17). Plaintiff alleged that the Social Security Administration (SSA) "failed to consider earnings in self-employment that he had in 1985 and 1986, and that these earnings will provide him with the requisite insured status." (Tr. 17).
The ALJ rejected Plaintiff's arguments and found that Plaintiff was "not entitled to any quarters of coverage for the years 1985 or 1986 based on self-employment income." (Tr. 19); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.803(c)(3) and 404.822(b)(2)(ii). The ALJ further found that Plaintiff was not insured for "purposes of establishing entitlement to a period of disability or [DIB] at any [material] time." (Tr. 19); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.130. The ALJ denied Plaintiff's October 9, 2001, application and concluded that Plaintiff was not insured "for purposes of establishing entitlement to a period of disability or disability insurance benefits" during the relevant time period. (Tr. 19).
DISCUSSION
In his decision, the ALJ cited to sections of the C.F.R. that govern a claimant's record of earnings. (Tr. 17-18).
If SSA records show an entry of self-employment income or wages for an employer for a period in that year, our records are conclusive evidence of your self-employment income in that year . . . unless one of the exceptions in § 404.822 applies;20 C.F.R. § 404.803(c)(3). 20 C.F.R. § 404.822 discusses the exceptions and corrections of a claimant's earnings record both before and after the specified time limit. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.822(a). Time limit, as set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.802, is defined as "a period of time 3 years, 3 months, and 15 days after any year in which [a claimant] received earnings," 20 C.F.R. § 404.802. Under subsection (b)(2)(i) of 404.822 the SSA "may correct the earnings record to agree with a tax return of self employment income filed before the end of the time limit." 20 C.F.R. § 404.822(b)(2)(i) (emphasis added). However, if a tax return is filed after the time limit, which is clearly the case with Plaintiff's filings, the SSA
may remove or reduce, but not increase, the amount of self-employment income entered on the earnings record to agree with a tax return of self-employment income filed after the time limit ends.20 C.F.R. § 404.822(b)(2)(ii) (emphasis added).
According to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records, Plaintiff filed income tax returns on May 15, 1995, showing taxable self-employment income of $2,354.00 for 1985 and $4,709.00 for 1986. (Tr. 17, 77-78). These income tax returns, were filed more than five years after the three year, three month, 15 day time limit for 1986, the later of the applicable years in question. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.802; 20 C.F.R. § 404.822(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, pursuant to the regulations, Plaintiff's earnings record cannot be increased on the basis of his tax returns. See id. Furthermore, there are no other exceptions in § 404.822 that would be applicable to Plaintiff's situation.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff's earnings record were accurate. The ALJ considered Plaintiff's records and correctly applied the applicable sections of the C.F.R. Therefore, Plaintiff's arguments should be rejected and the decision of the ALJ should be affirmed. Any remaining motions filed by Plaintiff should be denied or deemed moot.
Plaintiff also alleges that his due process rights were violated.See Complaint, docket no. 3. After reviewing the record, the Court finds no violation of Plaintiff's rights. He was given an appropriate hearing before the ALJ and the merits of his case were properly considered.
Plaintiff has filed various motions including, inter alia, motion for trial by a judge, motion for a pre trial hearing/conference, motion for Defendant to amend/adjust Plaintiff's earnings and for an award of disability benefits. In light of the Court's decision and after reviewing Plaintiff's motions, the Court finds these motions to be without merit.
RECOMMENDATION
In viewing the record as a whole, there is substantial evidence supporting the decision of the ALJ, therefore, this Court recommends that the decision of the Commission remain undisturbed. Claimant's request for remand or modification should be denied.Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being mailed to all parties who are hereby notified of their right to object. The parties must file any objection to the Report and Recommendation within ten days after receiving it. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections upon subsequent review.