Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04156/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04156-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ROBERT HARRISON PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 04-4156

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Harrison, the pro se plaintiff in this case, has appealed the final decision of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner") denying his

application for disability insurance benefits (hereinafter “DIB”), pursuant to §§ 216(i) and 223

of Title II of the Social Security Act (hereinafter "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. 

Both parties have filed appeal briefs (Doc. #8 & 10). In this judicial review, the court

must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the

Commissioner's decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The history of the administrative proceedings is contained in the respective appeal

briefs, as well as in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Because the instant matter

concerns unusual issues, the history will be recounted here, for the benefit of the reader. 

Plaintiff filed a claim for DIB on January 31, 2002, alleging June 1, 1995 as the onset

date of his disability (T. 63). The claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration (T. 38,

42). Plaintiff was afforded an administrative hearing on August 27, 2003 (T. 547-565), at

which he was represented by counsel (T. 16, 547). On October 15, 2003, the ALJ issued a fully

favorable decision, finding the plaintiff met the criteria for disability beginning June 1, 1995,

plaintiff’s alleged onset date (T. 16-24). 

Case 4:04-cv-04156-BES Document 11 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Plaintiff had filed a previous application on September 2, 1999 (T. 66-68), alleging the

same onset date. In his decision, the ALJ stated:

Another issue which must be addressed in this case is whether a decision by the

State Agency initially denying a claim filed by the claimant on September 2,

1999 should be reopened. Because the claimant filed his new application within

the four-year period following the date of the notice of the initial determination

made with respect to the earlier application, that prior determination may be

reopened for good cause. Good cause is established if new and material

evidence is submitted, there has been a computational error, or the evidence

considered in making the earlier determination clearly shows on its fact that an

error was made (20 CFR §404.987 et seq.). In conjunction with his new

application, the claimant has submitted new and material evidence in the form of

medical records not previously considered. Thus, there are grounds upon which

the earlier determination may be reopened and revised.

(T. 17). The ALJ also made the following relevant findings:

1. With regard to the claim for a period of disability and [DIB], the

claimant met the nondisability requirements set forth in Section

216(i) of the [Act] on June 1, 1995, and was insured for disability

benefits through December 31, 1998).

* * * 

14. The claimant has been under a disability, as defined in the Social

Security Act, since June 1, 1995. 20 C.F.R. §404.520(f). 

(T. 23-24). 

In his appeal brief, the plaintiff argues the following:

5. In accordance with the Administrative Law Judge findings in compliance

with the Social Security Act disability Act 216(i) and 223 I am requesting back

payment commencing from June 1, 1995 at the rate of disability Social Security

Benefit payment as ordered by ALJ Wendell C. Fowler.

(Doc. #8, p. 2). The defendant counters, however, contending that “the fact that Plaintiff was

awarded a period of disability going back to June 1, 1995, does not automatically result in

payment of disability benefits back to that time.” (Doc. #10. p. 4). To the contrary, according

Case 4:04-cv-04156-BES Document 11 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

to the defendant, under the circumstances present herein, the regulations provide that actual

disability benefits are payable only for up to 12 months prior to the plaintiff’s application for

such benefits. The undersigned agrees. 

A plaintiff may be awarded retroactive disability benefits for a period of up to one (1)

year prior to the date of application, when said plaintiff has filed the application after the first

month he or she could have been entitled to them. Boock v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 348, 350 (8th Cir.

1995), citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(b) (1988) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.621(a)(1)(i) (1994). Here, the

date of plaintiff’s first application, which was reopened by the ALJ, is September 2, 1999. 

Thus, plaintiff is entitled to back benefits retroactive to September, 1998, or 12 months prior to

his September 1999 application date. Id. (T. 54). In addition, it is uncontroverted that

“payment information shows that Plaintiff received a check for back benefits retroactive to

September 1998" (Doc. #10, p. 4).

Conclusion:

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the undersigned finds that substantial evidence

supports the determination to award back benefits from September 1998, rather than June 1,

1995, as asserted by the plaintiff. The decision is affirmed and the plaintiff’s Complaint is

dismissed with prejudice. 

ENTERED this 14 day of December, 2005. th

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-04156-BES Document 11 Filed 12/14/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

Case 4:04-cv-04156-BES Document 11 Filed 12/14/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>