Pettit v. Astrue
Filing
22
ORDER AND OPINION REVERSING COMMISSIONER'S FINAL DECISION AND REMANDING FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed on 2/25/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFREY W. PETTIT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. 12-3535-CV-S-ODS
ORDER AND OPINION REVERSING COMMISSIONER’S FINAL DECISION AND
REMANDING FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pending is Plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security=s final
decision denying his application for disability benefits under Title II. The
Commissioner's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for reconsideration.
Plaintiff was born in July 1968, completed high school and two years of education
beyond high school, and has prior work experience as an order puller. He was involved
in an automobile accident in 1998 and experienced a back injury. Since then (according
to the ALJ) Plaintiff has experienced degenerative disc disease, chronic neck and back
pain, anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder. R. at 64.
The procedural posture of this case is particularly important. The application was
filed in 2009, and sought both disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) benefits. SSI benefits were granted at the initial application stages, meaning it
was determined (without resort to a hearing) that Plaintiff was disabled the month after
the application was filed (because SSI benefits are not available prior to the month
following the month in which the application was filed).
However, it was initially determined Plaintiff was not disabled before the date of
his application, which necessitated the hearing. In fact, the relevant time period was
even more restricted because Plaintiff’s insured status for disability benefits expired at
the end of March 2004. Thus the question was whether Plaintiff was disabled between
February 1, 2001 (the amended onset date, see R. at 14) and March 31, 2004 (the last
day Plaintiff was insured). The Record contains multiple confirmations that this is the
relevant time period. Both Plaintiff’s counsel and the ALJ were careful to direct
Plaintiff’s answers to this time period. E.g., R. at 16-19, 22, 24-27, 29-33, 35, 37, 47.
The ALJ acknowledged this fact in his statements and questions to counsel during the
hearing. E.g., R. at 9, 15, 42. Finally, the ALJ acknowledged this fact in his written
Order. E.g., R. at 62, 64, 72.
The Court concludes the Commissioner’s final decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in the Record as a whole. Notwithstanding the fact that the
relevant time period was February 1, 2001 to March 31, 2004, the ALJ relied almost
exclusively on medical evidence from 2009 and later. R. at 67-70. This might have
been relevant in evaluating Plaintiff’s claim for SSI benefits – but this was not the issue
before the ALJ. More importantly, this evidence bears no obvious relation to Plaintiff’s
condition in the relevant time period and the ALJ does not explain how evidence from
five years later supported his decision, or how that evidence undermines Plaintiff’s
testimony about his condition during the relevant time period.
Admittedly, there are not a lot of records from the relevant time period. However,
the Court is also concerned that the ALJ mentioned only some of them – and devoted
far less attention to them than he did to the reports from 2009 and beyond.
Significantly, there appears to be no mention of Exhibits 3F, 11F, or 19F,1 and this
omission deprives the Commissioner’s final decision of necessary support.
As noted by counsel during the hearing, it appears Plaintiff’s condition is one that
has deteriorated over time. The Commissioner has determined Plaintiff was disabled at
least by 2009. The question is whether Plaintiff was disabled before that, and
specifically whether he was disabled at any time between February 1, 2001 and March
31, 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and the case is remanded so the
1
Exhibits 3F and 16F are also from the relevant time period, but at best they
appear to be marginally relevant to Plaintiff’s claim.
2
Commissioner can focus on the relevant time period. On remand, the Commissioner
may augment the Record with additional medical records that bear on this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: February 25, 2014
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?