Opinion ID: 781387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural History of Byam's 1996 Application

Text: 13 On June 21, 1996, Byam filed her fourth application. Her 1996 evaluations for this application noted clarity, coherence, and no delusions, but also suicidal ideation, depression, auditory hallucinations, and social phobia. They also mention that she suffered severe childhood physical and sexual abuse. The acting regional commissioner of the Social Security Administration again denied her application initially and on reconsideration. This time, she requested a hearing, but she submitted the request almost a month past the sixty-day request period, which she attributed to illness. The ALJ found no good cause for her untimeliness and dismissed the request. 14 In 1996, at about the time of her fourth application, Byam began to see Dr. Judy Nepveu for evaluation and treatment. Based upon previous evaluations and her own observations, Dr. Nepveu found that Byam suffers from lifelong dysfunction and is of borderline retarded intellect, although Dr. Nepveu had not measured her IQ. Dr. Nepveu concluded that Byam suffers from PTSD probably as a result of family violence. Two years later, in 1998, Dr. Nepveu observed that Byam's coping style is fixed and dysfunctional — she stonewalls. When she doesn't understand what to do, she does nothing. She'll have great difficulty following ... advice about paperwork and meetings. She also commented, She cannot advocate for herself, even when her own survival is at stake. 15 On January 29, 1998, Byam's counsel wrote to the SSA Office of Hearings and Appeals, enclosing a letter from Dr. Nepveu stating that Byam has a borderline retarded intellect and that she is too disabled to do what it takes to get `disability' benefits. After receiving this letter, the ALJ found good cause for her untimely request for a hearing, and scheduled a hearing for August 12, 1998. After missing this hearing, Byam appeared with counsel and testified at a rescheduled hearing on March 18, 1999. Byam's counsel requested reopening of previous applications, because Byam's mental impairments have prevented her from following through. 16 On April 21, 1999, the ALJ granted Byam SSI disability benefits dating back to June 21, 1996, the day she filed the fourth application. He found that she had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 1969, that her depression and disorders of the back ... cause significant vocationally relevant limitations and are severe within the meaning of the regulations [, imposing] significant restrictions in the ability to perform basic work activities, and that her impairments fit the criteria of an affective disorder under the federal regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 1, Section 12.04. The ALJ described her psychiatric condition as follows: 17 The claimant suffers from depression. She has difficulty keeping appointments and is lethargic. She is unable to advocate for herself, even when her own survival is at stake. She is upset, cries and is angry. She has hurt herself in the past. She has no energy, sleeps poorly and has nightmares. She has difficulty concentrating. She has dysphoria [anxiety and depression], anhedonia [the inability to experience pleasure], decreased appetite, hears voices and has anxiety and feelings of rage. She also has feelings of worthlessness and dissociative symptoms. She has suicidal ideation and describes fearfulness. 18 She suffers from post traumatic stress disorder secondary to abuse in her childhood. She is borderline retarded intellectually. Her coping style is fixed and dysfunctional. She stonewalls, when she doesn't understand what to do, she does nothing. She is unable to follow instructions or advice. 19 The ALJ recognized that the claimant has suffered from depression, post traumatic stress disorder, and borderline retarded intellect, but found that her condition worsened after June 1997, and that she was disabled beginning [on] June 21, 1996 but not prior there to [sic]. 20 On the question of reopening her earlier applications, the ALJ concluded that [t]here is no medical evidence which can establish disability prior to June 21, 1996. Therefore, I find that there is no new and material evidence or error on the face of the evidence that would establish good cause for reopening under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(b). However, the ALJ did not inquire whether her applications were denied as the result of fault (i.e., mental incapacity in Byam's case) under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488(c), and he did not inquire whether she had any mental or physical conditions that limited her ability to do things for [her]self, in accordance with SSR 91-5p, 1991 WL 208067, at . 21 Byam requested review of the ALJ's decision before the Appeals Council, which summarily denied her request by a final order on March 9, 2000, rendering the agency's decision final and subject to judicial review. Within the sixty-day period for filing a civil action, she then filed suit in the District of Vermont, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking to have the earlier applications reopened. Byam claimed first that the ALJ in 1999 constructively reopened the earlier applications by reviewing their merits. She also argued that the ALJ's decision not to reopen her previous applications denied her due process because she had been incompetent to advocate for herself and had been unrepresented by counsel, and thus, administrative notice was constitutionally deficient. 22 Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier, sitting as the district court by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment against Byam's claims. The district court ruled, first, that the ALJ had not constructively reopened the applications, and, second, that the denial notices were not constitutionally deficient. Despite noting that Dr. Nepveu's evaluation makes a strong case for establishing that [Byam] was so severely disabled that she could not comprehend the administrative process, he concluded that her medical history before 1996 falls short of establishing `sufficient severity to impair comprehension' of the administrative process. Byam v. Massanari, No. 2:00-CV-149, at 16 (D.Vt. July 5, 2001) (citing Stieberger, 134 F.3d at 40). Byam appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Commissioner.