Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/235/184/550331/
Timestamp: 2013-06-18 04:33:49
Document Index: 710484117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 422', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 422', '§ 422', '§ 423', '§ 404']

235 F.3d 184: Cleveland B. Walton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-appellee :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.3d > Volume 235 > 235 F.3d 184 - Cleveland B. Walton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
235 F.3d 184: Cleveland B. Walton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-appelleeUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. - 235 F.3d 184
Argued: October 30, 2000.Decided: December 18, 2000
Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-339)[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
1 Substantial gainful activity is"work activity that is both substantial and gainful," and that involves "doing significant physical or mental activities." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572, 416.972. According to the statutory guidelines, earnings between $300 and $500 per month may be deemed SGA, while earnings in excess of $500 per month create a rebuttable presumption of SGA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1574(b)(2)(vii), 416.974(b)(2)(vii); see also Payne v. Sullivan, 946 F.2d 1081, 1083 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the Commissioner considered the nature of appellant's work and his ability to do that work, in addition to his earnings. In this case, the regulations defining substantial gainful activity are reasonable, 42 U.S.C. § 405(a), the decision that appellant's October 1995 earnings were SGA was supported by substantial evidence, and we affirm this part of the district court's judgment.
2 A listed impairment is an impairment "considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a).
3 A trial work period permits qualified claimants to test their ability to work for up to nine months and still be considered disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 422(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1592.
4 Under the Act's sequential evaluation process, the disability inquiry will end at the first step, and the claimant will be found not disabled, irrespective of impairment, if he has engaged in SGA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). As discussed infra at 8, SGA during a trial work period is ignored, and will not end the evaluation process. 42 U.S.C. § 422(c)(2).
5 We affirm that portion of the district court's opinion. See supra n.1.
6 This proposed regulation (which reflects the position of SSR 82-52) became effective on August 10, 2000, and does not apply retroactively to Walton's case.
7 There is no entitlement to receive benefits until after this waiting period, which refers to the earliest period of five consecutive calendar months "throughout which the individual with respect to such application is filed has been under a disability." 42 U.S.C.§ 422(c)(2); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(a).
8 Once the trial work period is over, the agency can consider the work done during the work period in determining whether the disability has ended after the work period. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1592(a).
9 The Commissioner's "interpretation" mandates that a trial work period may "not be awarded when a claimant performs work demonstrating the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity within 12 months after the alleged onset of disability and prior to an award of benefits." J.A. 97.
10 We join no fewer than four other circuit courts of appeal in the assessment that the agency's position contradicts the plain language of the governing statute. See Salamalekis v. Commissioner of Social Security, 221 F.3d 828, 832 (6th Cir. 2000) (agency position and SSR 82-52 an invalid interpretation of the Act); Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688, 69394 (8th Cir. 1996) (trial work period starts in the month that disability entitlement begins, i.e., after five-month waiting period; agency ruling is inconsistent with the statutory provisions); Walker v. Director, Health and Human Services, 943 F.2d 1257, 1259-60 (10th Cir. 1991) (same); McDonald v. Bowen, 818 F.2d 559, 564 (7th Cir. 1987) (same).