Butts v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 824
| Decision Date | 02 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 824,824 |
| Parties | Raymond BUTTS, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee. ocket 82-6238. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Raymond Butts, pro se.
Kathleen A. Haggerty, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y.; Miles M. Tepper, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before OAKES, CARDAMONE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Butts appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Judge, granting the motion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("the Secretary") for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) and affirming the Secretary's denial of Butts' application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The Secretary denied Butts' disability benefits based on a finding that Butts had insufficient quarters of coverage to qualify for such benefits. We affirm.
An individual is insured against a disability under Sec. 223(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(c)(1)(B)(i), if he has twenty quarters coverage during the forty quarters preceding the disability. Mr. Butts, a disabled person since 1975, asks us to consider, as he believes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the district court judge did not, conflicting evidence that he was paid wages by Morris Heller Electric Co. for sufficient quarters between 1962 and 1970 to entitle him to benefits. The ALJ did acknowledge that the employer "stated claimant worked for many additional quarters that are not recorded, but he is unable to substantiate this contention with acceptable proof." Heller Electric Co. retained no business records for the years prior to 1970, the last year of Butts' work there. Both Heller and Butts insisted that all work was "on the books" with proper deductions and payments to Social Security. Although the ALJ also had before him Exhibit 10, a 1971 letter submitted in evidence by Butts, signed by Heller, stating that "Raymond Butts was employed by Heller Electric Co. from April 1962 until December 1970 as an electrician," Heller's oral testimony that Butts "didn't work constantly; he was on and off" is not irreconcilable with that 1971 letter. Against all this, a computer search of earnings records under two social security numbers used by the claimant as well as under the employer reporting number indicated that Butts worked for Heller for only eleven quarters between 1962 and 1970. Butts repeatedly asserted that the records were in error. Butts did not, however, produce copies of income tax records and W-2 forms for the years in question; in fact, he testified he never filed tax returns or requested a W-2 form from his employer.
The problem, very simply, is one of proof. Congress has mandated that the income tax reporting system is the method for determining social security coverage. Of course computer records can be in error, but the statute provides for accuracy safeguards. Each social security registrant has the right to review his record of earnings and quarters credited to his social security number. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(c)(2)(A). Each registrant has the right to seek to correct errors within three years, three months and fifteen days. Id. (c)(4).
After that period, however, an absence of an entry in the Secretary's records is presumptive evidence that no wages were paid during the period in question. Id. (c)(4)(B). The presumption "protects the government from spurious or merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vered v. Colvin
...the 40-quarter (10-year) period preceding his onset date of disability.8 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.130; see also Butts v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 706 F.2d 107, 107 (2d Cir. 1983). "For someone who works continuously for at least five years and then [completely] stops working, this means......
-
Tengasco, Inc. v. Jewell
...on summary judgment is similar to his ultimate burden on the merits: preponderance of the evidence. See Butts v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 706 F.2d 107, 108 (2nd Cir. 1983). Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure for resolving a challenge to a federal agency's administrative......
-
Koffsky v. Apfel
...their wages to [the] IRS, Congress saw fit to impose a stricter standard.... Id. at 17. See also Butts v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 706 F.2d 107, 108 (2d Cir.1983). Given the Second Circuit's express approval of the statute that Koffsky claims is a violation of equal protectio......
-
Straehle v. Astrue, 10-CV-2120(JS)
...period which ends with the quarter in which such month occurred." Id. § 423(c)(1)(B)(i); see also Butts v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 706 F.2d 107, 107 (2d Cir. 1983). Here, the Appeals Council only credited Plaintiff with 17 out of the required 20 quarters of coverage. Plaintiff argue......