Beauvoir v. Chater
| Decision Date | 21 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 342,342 |
| Citation | 104 F.3d 1432 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 15650B Gary BEAUVOIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 96-6082. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Stanley F. Meltzer, Meltzer, Fishman, Madigan & Campbell, New York City, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Gwen Pollak, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY (Zachary W. Carter, United States Attorney, Varuni Nelson, Bruce H. Nims, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: OAKES, VAN GRAAFEILAND, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Gary Beauvoir appeals from Judge Raggi's decision upholding the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits to Beauvoir beyond September 30, 1990. Beauvoir asserts that he continues to suffer from an inability to speak that constitutes a listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1, Listing 2.09 ("Listing 2.09"). We hold that Beauvoir's ability to speak in a sustained whisper is not within Listing 2.09's description of an "[o]rganic loss of speech."
Beauvoir applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423, on March 31, 1991, claiming that he had been unable to work since a car accident on October 26, 1986, due to fractures of his ankle and hip and damage to his trachea that caused a significant impairment of his ability to speak. After a hearing on June 14, 1993, at which Beauvoir appeared with his attorney and testified in a soft whisper, Administrative Law Judge Harold Rosenbaum ("ALJ") determined that the relevant period of disability was from the date of the accident to September 30, 1990. In rendering his decision, the ALJ relied on medical reports and other evidence that surgery on Beauvoir's vocal cord in 1987 followed by speech therapy had improved his ability to speak. The ALJ also relied on his own assessment of Beauvoir's ability to speak as demonstrated during the hearing. With regard to Beauvoir's other injuries, the ALJ relied on reports and testimony by Beauvoir that the injuries to his hip and ankle had healed by March 1990. The ALJ concluded that by the end of September 1990, Beauvoir was physically able to return to his prior work as a liquor store manager--although by this time appellant had become a full-time accounting student--and that Beauvoir was therefore not entitled to further disability payments.
Appellant's request for review by the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council was rejected in June 1994. Beauvoir then filed the instant action seeking review of the Social Security Administration's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After examining the record and listening to a recording of the hearing before the ALJ, Magistrate Judge Mann recommended that the ALJ's decision be affirmed. Beauvoir v. Shalala, 94-CV-3757 (RR) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 1995). District Court Judge Raggi, after considering the record and also listening to the recording of the hearing, adopted Magistrate Mann's report and recommendation.
The Social Security Act defines "disability" in relevant part as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Administrative regulations prescribe the analytic framework for evaluating claims of disability. The Social Security Administration ("SSA") first considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. If not, the SSA next considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" that significantly limits the ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant does suffer such an impairment, then the SSA determines whether the claimant has an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P (such as Listing 2.09). If the claimant meets the descriptions of one of the listed impairments, then the SSA presumes the claimant to be disabled without considering the claimant's actual ability to perform substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); see also Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (1982). The sole question before us is whether Beauvoir's limited ability to speak is a "listed" impairment.
Our review of the Social Security Administration's "final decision denying a SSI disability benefits claim is not de novo; it is limited to inquiring into whether the Secretary's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole or are based on an erroneous legal standard." 1 Cruz v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 8, 11 (2d Cir.1990) (citation omitted). The question here is somewhat unusual in that the ALJ based his decision in part on his personal observation and hearing of Beauvoir's testimony, and the magistrate and district judges listened to the tape of that hearing. We also have the tape before us.
The issue in the instant matter concerns Listing 2.09. Listing 2.09 states the qualifying disability condition as:
Organic loss of speech due to any cause with inability to produce by any means speech which can be heard, understood, and sustained.
20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1, Listing 2.09. Social Security Ruling 82-57 ("Ruling 82-57") further defines the disability condition of Listing 2.09:
Three attributes of speech pertinent to the evaluation of speech proficiency [under Listing 2.09] are: (1) audibility--the ability to speak at a level sufficient to be heard; (2) intelligibility--the ability to articulate and to link the phonetic units of speech with sufficient accuracy to be understood; and (3) functional efficiency--the ability to produce and sustain a serviceably fast rate of speech output over a useful period of time. When at least one of these attributes is missing, overall speech function is not considered effective.
Medical reports, the ALJ, Judge Mann, Judge Raggi, and even on occasion Beauvoir's own counsel have characterized appellant as being able to speak in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Echevarria v. Apfel
...be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997).6 That impairment must be of such severity that the person "is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, consi......
-
Ackerman v. Colvin, 13-CV-6675 (RLE)
...be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A); Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997). Establishing the merepresence of an impairment is not sufficient for a finding of disability; the impairment must caus......
-
Torres v. Colvin
...to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A); Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997). Establishing the mere presence of an impairment is not sufficient for a finding of disability; the impairment must result in ......
-
Sica v. Colvin
...be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A); Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997). Establishing the mere presence of an impairment is not sufficient for a finding of disability; the impairment must cau......
-
Specific impairments issues
...due to any cause with inability to produce by any means speech which can be heard, understood, and sustained.’” Beauvoir v. Chater , 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997), quoting 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 2.09. b. Social Security Ruling 82-57 further defines Listing 2.09 as descr......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. July 10, 2014), 7 th -14 Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Properties, Inc., 780 F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 1986), § 702.7 Beauvoir v. Chater , 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997), § 320.2 Beavers v. Secretary of HEW , 577 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1978), § 204.2 Bechtold v. Massanari, 152 F. Supp.2......
-
Table of cases
...(10th Cir. 1995), § 202.1 Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Properties, Inc., 780 F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 1986), § 702.7 Beauvoir v. Chater , 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997), § 320.2 Beavers v. Secretary of HEW , 577 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1978), § 204.2 Bechtold v. Massanari, 152 F. Supp.2d 13......