Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_04-cv-00186/USCOURTS-ared-2_04-cv-00186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melissa Loyd
Plaintiff
Social Security Administration
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA LOYD Plaintiff

v. 2:04CV00186 GH/HLJ

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social

Security Administration, Defendant

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

INSTRUCTIONS

This recommended disposition has been submitted to United States

District Judge George Howard, Jr. The parties may file specific

written objections to these findings and recommendations and must

provide the factual or legal basis for each objection. An original

and two copies of the objections must be filed with the Clerk no

later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. A copy must be served on the opposing party. The

District Judge, even in the absence of objections, may reject these

proposed findings and recommendations in whole or in part.

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff, Melissa Loyd, has appealed the final decision of the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Both parties

have submitted appeal briefs and the case is ready for decision. The

Court's function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner's

decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a

whole and free of legal error. Long v. Chater, 108 F.3d 185, 187

(8th Cir. 1997); see also, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Case 2:04-cv-00186-GH Document 12 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 4
 1

The Hon. Wendell C. Fowler.

 2SSI benefits are not payable for a period prior to the application.

Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 1989).

2

Plaintiff filed her fourth application for Supplemental Security

Income (SSI), based on disability, on September 27, 2002. (Tr. 75-

78) She had filed at least one application for Disability Insurance

benefits, which was denied and apparently not appealed. (Tr. 157)

After conducting an administrative hearing on her latest application

for SSI, the Administrative Law Judge1

 (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff

had been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security

Act since the date of her application.2 (Tr. 23) Plaintiff requested

review of the ALJ’s decision as it related to Title II benefits

(Disability Insurance benefits). (Tr. 9) On September 17, 2004, the

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for a review of the ALJ's

decision, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the

Commissioner. (Tr. 5-7) Plaintiff then filed her complaint

initiating this appeal. (Docket #2)

Plaintiff seeks to receive Disability Insurance benefits based

on the ALJ’s favorable decision on her SSI application. She offers

two (inconsistent) arguments to that end: (1) that the SSI

application encompassed an application for Disability Insurance

benefits (Br. 2) or (2) she had an application for Disability

Insurance benefits pending, and the ALJ abused his discretion in not

consolidating the two for administrative hearing (Br. 6-7).

First, Plaintiff argues, without citation of authority, that

“This [SSI] application also encompassed although not so stated, an

Case 2:04-cv-00186-GH Document 12 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 4
3

application for SSD benefits as well.” (Br. 2) Plaintiff cites no

authority in support of her argument and gives no rationale for why

it should be as she states. Some courts treat such a failure to

flesh out such an argument as waiver of the argument.

[W]e see no reason to abandon the settled appellate rule

that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,

unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,

are deemed waived. It is not enough merely to mention a

possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the

court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the

argument, and put flesh on its bones. As we recently said

in a closely analogous context: "Judges are not expected to

be mind[]readers. Consequently, a litigant has an

obligation 'to spell out its arguments squarely and

distinctly,' or else forever hold its peace."

United States v. Zannino , 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 494 U.S. 1082 (1992)(citations omitted). As the ALJ and

Plaintiff’s attorney discussed during the hearing, there must be a

written application for Disability Insurance benefits. (Tr. 298-99)

The Court is unaware of, and Plaintiff has not pointed out, any basis

for a ruling to the contrary. Plaintiff’s first argument is without

merit.

Second, Plaintiff contends that she had a separate Disability

Insurance benefits application pending, and the ALJ abused his

discretion by not consolidating the two for an administrative

hearing. (Br. 7) Assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff

had a Disability Insurance benefits claim pending at the time of the

administrative hearing, it seems clear that the ALJ’s failure to

consolidate the two applications for hearing was not an abuse of

discretion.

(a) General. (1) A consolidated hearing may be held

if--

Case 2:04-cv-00186-GH Document 12 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 4
4

(i) You have requested a hearing to decide your

benefit rights under title II of the Act and you have also

requested a hearing to decide your rights under another law

we administer; and

(ii) One or more of the issues to be considered at the

hearing you requested are the same issues that are involved

in another claim you have pending before us.

(2) If the administrative law judge decides to hold

the hearing on both claims, he or she decides both claims,

even if we have not yet made an initial or reconsidered

determination on the other claim.

(b) Record, evidence, and decision. There will be a

single record at a consolidated hearing. This means that

the evidence introduced in one case becomes evidence in the

other(s). The administrative law judge may make either a

separate or consolidated decision.

20 C.F.R. § 404.952 (2003) (emphasis added). 

The ALJ could have consolidated the two applications for

hearing, but was not required to do so. Id. Therefore, his failure

to do so was not abuse of discretion. The Commissioner's decision is

not based on legal error.

THEREFORE, the Court hereby affirms the final determination of

the Commissioner and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00186-GH Document 12 Filed 01/10/06 Page 4 of 4