Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-04164/USCOURTS-ca10-04-04164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR5 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

EDWARD JOSEF SCHULER, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 04-4164 

(D.C. No. 2:03-CV-736-TS) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LUCERO, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination 

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-4164 Document: 010110533890 Date Filed: 04/05/2005 Page: 1
Plaintiff Edward Schuler appeals the district court's affirmance of the 

Commissioner's decision denying him disability insurance benefits (DIB), 

because he was not insured for DIB due to insufficient quarters of coverage on his 

alleged disability onset date. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

and 42 U .S.C. § 405(g), and we affirm. 

To be insured, Mr. Schuler is required to show that he had at least twenty 

quarters of coverage in the forty-quarter period including October 20, 1988, his 

alleged date of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(c)(l)(B)(i); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.130(b)(2); Snyder v. Shala/a, 44 F.3d 896,897 (10th Cir. 1995). The 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Schuler was not insured for DIB 

on October 20, or at any later date, because he had only eleven of the requisite 

twenty quarters of coverage. The ALJ rejected Mr. Schuler's attempt to acquire 

quarters of coverage for self-employment income in 1985 and 1986, because he 

filed tax returns for those years outside the time limits permitted for inclusion of 

self-employment income in the calculation of quarters of coverage and no 

exceptions applied. Even if he qualified for the eight additional quarters of 

coverage for 1985 and 1986, the ALJ noted he still had only nineteen quarters of 

coverage. The Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ' s decision the 

final decision of the Commissioner. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-4164 Document: 010110533890 Date Filed: 04/05/2005 Page: 2
Mr. Schuler then appealed to the district court. On referral, the magistrate 

judge concluded substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision and 

recommended the decision be affirmed. The district court adopted the magistrate 

judge's report and recommendation. 

Like the district court, we review the Commissioner's decision to determine 

whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether 

the correct legal standards were applied. Threet v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 1185, 1189 

(10th Cir. 2003). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Hamlin v. Barnhart, 

365 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004). 

Mr. Schuler argues that the Commissioner's refusal to recompute his 

quarters of coverage denied him due process and equal protection. The Social 

Security Administration's (SSA) earnings record for Mr. Schuler shows no 

self-employment income entries for 1985 and 1986. Mr. Schuler filed tax returns 

reporting self-employment income for these years in May 1995, after the 

limitations period expired for correcting self-employment income records. See 

42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(l)(B), (c)(4) (setting forth three-year, three-month and 

fifteen-day time limitations period for correcting records for year in question). 

The SSA's record therefore is conclusive evidence that Mr. Schuler had no 

self-employment income for 1985 and 1986. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(4)(C); 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-4164 Document: 010110533890 Date Filed: 04/05/2005 Page: 3
20 C.F.R. § 404.803(c)(3); Yoder v. Harris, 650 F.2d 1170, 1172 (10th Cir. 1981). 

And no exceptions apply for correcting Mr. Schuler's earnings record for these 

two years. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(5)(F); 20 C.F.R. § 404.822(b)(2). We 

conclude the ALJ's decision that Mr. Schuler was not entitled to any quarters of 

coverage for 1985 and 1986 self-employment income is supported by substantial 

evidence and is without legal error. 

Next, Mr. Schuler argues that he presented new evidence in the district 

court that part of his 1985 and 1986 earnings was from wages, and therefore this 

court should remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Remand is 

appropriate only "upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material 

and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the 

record in a prior proceeding." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In this case, remand is not 

appropriate. As the district court recognized, the administrative record shows 

only self-employment income for 1985 and 1986, not wages. Mr. Schuler fails to 

show good cause for not bringing this argument to the ALJ's attention. 

Moreover, we note that the wage information he presented to the district court is 

from 1987, a year for which he received four quarters of coverage. 

In addition, Mr. Schuler argues that if the Commissioner had recomputed 

his earnings under 20 C.F .R. § 404.211, he would have had sufficient quarters of 

coverage. This section applies to the computation of the amount of benefits for 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-4164 Document: 010110533890 Date Filed: 04/05/2005 Page: 4
persons who are entitled to DIB. Because Mr. Schuler is not eligible for benefits 

due to insufficient quarters of coverage, this section does not apply to him. 

We reject Mr. Schuler's argument that the district court erred in denying 

him oral argument. A party's right to be heard may be satisfied by the district 

court's review of the briefs and other materials before the court. Geear v. 

Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir. 1988). Here, the magistrate 

judge examined the district court filings and the administrative record, and the 

district court reviewed Mr. Schuler's objections to the magistrate judge's report 

and recommendation de novo. Nothing in the record before us suggests the case 

could not be adequately addressed based on the district court filings and 

administrative record. See id. 

We also reject Mr. Schuler's argument that his prose status has 

handicapped his ability to amend his records and has deprived him of due process 

and equal protection. Mr. Schuler's prose status alone is not enough to require 

reversal. See Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992). And 

Mr. Schuler does not show either a deprivation of due process or equal protection. 

Finally, we reject any of Mr. Schuler's arguments that have not been 

specifically addressed in this order and judgment. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-4164 Document: 010110533890 Date Filed: 04/05/2005 Page: 5
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr. Schuler's request 

for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is moot. The district court 

did not alter Mr. Schuler's IFP status after filing its decision. Thus, he was 

permitted to make his payments in installments. He remains obligated to continue 

making payments until the entire filing fee is paid. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-4164 Document: 010110533890 Date Filed: 04/05/2005 Page: 6