Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03808/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03808-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Carol I. Ratulowski
Appellant

Document Text:

*

  After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted June 16, 2010*

Decided June 17, 2010

Before

   RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3808

CAROL I. RATULOWSKI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the

United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 09‐CV‐270

Aaron E. Goodstein,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

No one disputes that Carol Ratulowski has been disabled since February 1979, when

she was in a car accident that caused her multiple injuries, including an injury to her spinal

cord.  Based on those injuries, she receives supplemental security income benefits.  Now she

also seeks disability insurance benefits and child’s insurance benefits, based on a

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3808 Document: 18 Filed: 06/17/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐3808 Page 2

miscarriage in 1975 that she says rendered her disabled.  But an administrative law judge

concluded that the miscarriage was not disabling and denied her claim.  Because the ALJ’s

decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

Ratulowski applied for disability benefits and child’s benefits (based on her father’s

insurance) in 2006, after a field worker at her local social security office suggested that she

might be able to get more money if she qualified for disability or child’s benefits.  After her

claim was initially denied, she requested a hearing, at which she appeared pro se.  At the

hearing, one issue that arose was whether she should have legal representation.  The ALJ

told her of her right to counsel, and he offered to postpone the hearing if she wanted more

time to find counsel.  She declined and proceeded without counsel.  

Another issue that surfaced was the onset date of Ratulowski’s disability.  The ALJ

attempted to focus her attention on her medical problems between 1975 and 1978.  He

explained that to be eligible for disability benefits, she would have to show that she became

disabled before the date she was last insured, in December 1978—two months before the car

accident. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.131.  For child’s benefits, she would have to show that she

became disabled before she turned 22, in August 1976.  See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(B);

20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a).   Ratulowski testified that she had a miscarriage in 1975 but her

memory of that time was limited.  When the ALJ pressed for more, she said that she spent

time in the hospital after the miscarriage and became traumatized there after seeing the

fetus in a glass jar.  The ALJ stressed the need for her to produce records supporting her

medical problems from 1975 through 1978, and gave her more time to locate any additional

medical records.  Ratulowski was able to find records documenting the miscarriage, the

resulting surgical procedure, and a follow‐up appointment; however, these documents

taken together reflect that she recovered well.  

The ALJ was not persuaded that the miscarriage rendered Ratulowski disabled and

denied her claim.  The Appeals Council denied her request for review, so she brought this

suit.  The district court upheld the denial of benefits, and though it noted that the ALJ did

not say enough about Ratulowski’s right to counsel, it found the omission harmless because

the ALJ adequately developed the record.

On appeal Ratulowski asserts that she in fact wanted an attorney at her hearing—an

argument that we construe as a challenge to her waiver of counsel before the ALJ.  A

claimant has a statutory right to counsel at a disability hearing.  See 42 U.S.C. § 406; Skinner

v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007).  The claimant can validly waive that right as long

as the ALJ fully explains it.  Skinner, 478 F.3d at 841.  But as the district court pointed out,

the ALJ did not comport with this circuit’s requirements for establishing a valid waiver

Case: 09-3808 Document: 18 Filed: 06/17/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐3808 Page 3

because he did not explain that any attorney’s fees are subject to the court’s approval, and

that attorney’s fees are capped at 25% of the past‐due benefits.  Id.  That information was set

forth, though, in the Social Security Administration’s letter (in January 2007) notifying

Ratulowski that she could request the hearing.  In any event, an invalid waiver does not

require remand if the ALJ adequately developed the record, id. at 841‐42; Binion v. Shalala,

13 F.3d 243, 245‐46 (7th Cir. 1994), and we agree with the Commissioner that the ALJ

adequately developed the record.  The ALJ issued requests for medical records, explained to

Ratulowski the importance of detailing any medical problems she had between 1976 and

1978, encouraged her to look at home for more records from that time period, extended her

time to submit additional records, and provided her an addressed, stamped envelope in

which to return the records.

Ratulowski also challenges the ALJ’s conclusion that she was not disabled as a result

of her miscarriage.  She reiterates that the miscarriage was traumatic, and adds that she

suffered flashbacks of seeing the fetus in the jar for a few months.  Disability within the

meaning of the Social Security Act, however, requires that Ratulowski be unable to work at

all for more than a year, see 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), and this she has not shown.  Nor do her

medical records show that the miscarriage caused any lasting medical problems.  We will

uphold an ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Getch v. Astrue,

539 F.3d 473, 480 (7th Cir. 2008), and here, the ALJ’s decision was consistent with the

evidence in the record.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-3808 Document: 18 Filed: 06/17/2010 Pages: 3