Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_04-cv-03063/USCOURTS-arwd-3_04-cv-03063-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

DAVID A. RIDDLE PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 04-3063

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff David A. Riddle brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),seeking

judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner)

calculation of supplemental security income (SSI) payments. He also seeks review of the

Commissioner’s denial of period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the

provisions of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act).

Procedural Background:

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI on March 8, 1999, alleging an inability

to work since January 1, 1998. (Tr. 74-77). Plaintiff’s application was denied at the initial and

reconsideration levels. (Tr. 23-26). On February 13, 2002, the Appeals Council vacated an

ALJ’s May 5, 2000, unfavorable decisions. (Tr. 28-44, 69-72). A fully favorable ALJ decision

was issued on May 21, 2002. (Tr.295-304). The ALJ found plaintiff had been under a disability,

as defined by the Act, since March 8, 1999. (Tr. 302-303). 

On August 8, 2002, plaintiff filed a “request for reconsideration” of the award for SSI.

(Tr. 305). Plaintiff indicated that he was receiving insufficient monthly and back pay benefits and

Case 3:04-cv-03063-BSJ Document 8 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

that unearned income shown for his wife was inaccurate. A January 23, 2003, “Notification of

Reconsideration” indicated plaintiff’s claim was reviewed, by someone other than the person

who made the initial determination concerning his SSI back pay and monthly benefits, and that

the decision was correct. (Tr. 308). 

On February 2003, plaintiff filed a request for a hearing. Plaintiff indicated that he was

receiving insufficient monthly and back pay benefits and that he had additional earnings not yet

verified by the administration. (Tr. 311). Plaintiff was represented by an attorney at an August

27, 2003, hearing at which plaintiff and his wife testified. (Tr. 540-569).

In a written decision dated April 1, 2004, the ALJ found plaintiff was entitled to SSI

payments based on his disability and an application filed on March 8, 1999. (Tr. 19). The ALJ

found plaintiff had provided no evidence that he was not being paid correctly or that his SSI

payments had been miscalculated. (Tr. 20). For DIB purposes, the ALJ found plaintiff met the

special disability insured status requirements on December 31, 1994. (Tr. 19). The ALJ found

plaintiff provided no evidence that the earnings posted to his earnings record are incorrect or that

he was entitled to DIB. (Tr. 19-20). 

Plaintiff appealed the decision of the ALJ to the Appeals Council. Plaintiff's request for

review of the hearing decision was denied on July 29, 2004. (Tr. 8-10). When the Appeals

Council declined review, the ALJ’s decision became the final action of the Commissioner.

Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of that decision. (Doc. #1). Both parties were afforded the

opportunity to file an appeal brief; however, only defendant chose to do so. (Doc. # 7). This case

is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties.

Case 3:04-cv-03063-BSJ Document 8 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

Evidence Presented:

At the administrative hearing before the ALJ on August 27, 2003, plaintiff’s counsel

indicated that plaintiff contends his SSI payments are not correct and that he should also be

reviewing DIB. (Tr. 544). Plaintiff introduced his tax statements for the years 1989, 1990, 1990,

and 1993. (Tr. 545, 434-489). Plaintiff agreed with the ALJ that his onset dated was March 8,

1999. (Tr. 545).

There is also testimony from plaintiff and his wife regarding his medical condition, daily

activities and past work. (Tr. 545-568).

Applicable Law:

This court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir.

2002). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a reasonable mind

would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be

affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d

964, 966 (8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the

Commissioner's decision, the court maynot reverse it simply because substantial evidence exists

in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome, or because the court would have

decided the case differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). In other

words, if after reviewing the record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the

evidence and one of those positions represents the findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ

must be affirmed. Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).

Case 3:04-cv-03063-BSJ Document 8 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

The Act provides that after a time limitation of three years, three months and fifteen days has expired, the absence of 1

 an entry in the SSA’s earnings records as to wages alleged to have been paid by an employer is presumptive evidence

 that no such alleges wages were paid. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(c)(1)(B) and 405(c)(4)(B). With regard to self-employment

 income, once the time limitation has expired the absence in the earnings record is generally conclusive, unless a tax

 return of self employment income was filed before the expiration of the time limits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(4)(c). Plaintiff

 did not provide information to show earnings were erroneously placed under his wife instead of himself. 

4

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden

of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one

year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.

Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir.2001); see also 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(1)(A),

1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act defines “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results

from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § § 423(d)(3),

1382(3)(c). A plaintiff must show that his disability, not simply his impairment, has lasted for

at least twelve consecutive months.

Discussion:

We will first address plaintiff’s contention that he should be receiving DIB benefits. In

the present case, plaintiff applied for SSI benefits on March 8, 1999. In a favorable decision

dated May 21, 2002, an ALJ found plaintiff was entitled to SSI benefits as of March 8, 1999. At

the administrative hearing, plaintiff stated that he should be receiving DIB, as well as, SSI and

provided income tax statements to provide information regarding his income. Furthermore, after 1

reviewing the record, we are unable to find any documentation revealing that plaintiff in fact

applied for DIB. Even if this application for DIB could be found, plaintiff was not eligible for

Case 3:04-cv-03063-BSJ Document 8 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

In order to have insured status under the Act, an individual is required to have twenty quarters of coverage in each

2

 forty-quarter period ending with the first quarter of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(3)(B). Plaintiff last met this

 requirement on December 31, 1994. (Tr. 18). In order for plaintiff to qualify for disability benefits he must prove that,

 on or before the expiration of his insured status he was unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a

 medically determinable physical or mental impairment which is expected to last for at least twelve months or result in

 death. Basinger v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1166, 1168 (8th Cir. 1984). The medical evidence of plaintiff's condition

 subsequent to the expiration of plaintiff's insured status is relevant only to the extent it helps establish plaintiff's

 condition before the expiration. Id. at 1169.

5

DIB in March of 1999, when he has found to be eligible for SSI, because he did not meet the

insured status requirements. 

2

Plaintiff also alleges that his SSI back payments and monthly payments were

miscalculated. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence showing that the administration

miscalculated his back pay or monthly payments. Based on the current evidence of record, we

find substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s SSI payments were

properly calculated. 

Conclusion:

Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the undersigned finds substantial

evidence supporting the ALJ's decision, and thus the decision should be affirmed. The

undersigned further finds that the plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 27 day of October 2005. th

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:04-cv-03063-BSJ Document 8 Filed 10/27/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>