Court Opinion

ID: 9478441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:48:58.081915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:25.757470
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The equities in favor of tolling the statute of limitations period are so great in this case that deference to the agency’s judgment is inappropriate. First, Turner had no legal representation at the hearing before the AU. The presence of a state representative, who was not a lawyer, does not guarantee that Turner understood his right to appeal or that he knew this right would extinguish if not exercised within a certain time period. Moreover, the AU did not ask Turner whether he wanted an attorney at the hearing or inform him of the advantages of having counsel present. The AU merely informed Turner that he could have an attorney there if he so desired.1 When a claimant is illiterate and appears without counsel, the AU should discuss with the claimant how counsel can be obtained and *711what the benefits of such legal representation are. Montgomery v. Schweiker, 529 F.Supp. 124, 128 (D. Maryland 1981); see also, Cruz v. Heckler, 593 F.Supp. 45, 52 (S.D.N.Y.1984). Neither the presence of a state representative nor Turner’s behavior before the AU constitute conduct indicating that Turner had made an informed decision to proceed without counsel. Based on the record before this Court, I seriously question whether Turner’s legal rights were adequately protected at the administrative hearing.
Second, Turner is an illiterate farm worker who has had no education of any kind. This impairment prevented Turner from understanding the notice advising him of the 60-day time limit to appeal the AU’s decision. Turner’s ability to comprehend basic legal requirements is, therefore, limited. There is no evidence that Turner learned about the appeal process from the AU, his state representative or his wife. Even the letter from Senator Bumpers neglected to inform Turner that his appeal to federal district court would be time-barred if not filed within 60 days of the Appeals Council’s decision.
Finally, Turner’s appeal from the AU’s denial of disability benefits is a meritorious one. The AU held that, although Turner has a severe impairment, he is a younger individual, able to communicate in English who has past “semi-skilled work experience, driving a tractor.” (T. 18). The AU, referring to Rule 201.19 of Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Pt. 404, Subpart P, found that Turner was not disabled. This finding is a clear misapplication of the Medical Vocational Guidelines. The AU correctly found that Turner was, at the time of the hearing, an individual between the ages of 45 and 49. The AU incorrectly stated, however, that Turner had a limited education. The record clearly shows that Turner is completely illiterate, having had no education. The AU also erred in determining that Turner’s experience as a farm laborer was “semi-skilled work.”2 There is no evidence to indicate that Turner’s past work involved more than the simple task of driving a tractor. If the AU’s factual findings are corrected to reflect the record, Turner would be automatically eligible for disability pursuant to Rule 201.17 of Table No. 1, Appendix 2, Pt. 404, Subpart P. Turner's claim of disability, in my opinion, is meritorious because the AU clearly erred in applying the facts to the vocational guidelines, and a correct application of the guidelines would lead to a finding of automatic disability.
Because of the AU’s failure to inform Turner about the benefits of legal representation at the hearing, Turner’s illiteracy, and the misapplication of the guidelines by the AU, I feel the 60-day statute of limitations should be tolled and Turner’s case should proceed on the merits.

. At the beginning of the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
AU: * * * Mr. Turner, the notice we sent you mention [sic] the fact that you could get a lawyer if you wanted too [sic].
CLMT: Yes sir.
AU: You appear with Mr. Glover, this afternoon which is quite satisfactory. But I have to mention the fact that you are aware that you could get a lawyer if you wanted too [sic].
CLMT: Yes sir.
*711(T. 48).

. Semi-skilled work is that which requires some skills, alertness, and close attention to watching machine processes. A job which requires coordination and dexterity may be so classified. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(b).
Unskilled work is defined as:
"work which needs little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be learned on the job in a short period of time. * * * For example, we consider jobs unskilled if the primary work duties are handling, feeding and off-bearing, * * * or machine tending, and a person can usually learn to do the job in 30 days, and little specific vocational preparation and judgment are needed.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(a).