Maes v. Astrue
Decision Date | 14 April 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 06-6317.,06-6317. |
Citation | 522 F.3d 1093 |
Parties | Martha A. MAES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Gayle L. Troutman, Troutman & Troutman, P.C., Tulsa, OK, appearing for Appellant.
Eric B. Tucker, Special Assistant United States Attorney (John C. Richter, United States Attorney, and Tina M. Waddell, Regional Chief Counsel, Region VI, with him on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, appearing for Appellee.
Before TACHA, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Plaintiff-Appellant Martha Maes disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. The District Court affirmed. Ms. Maes now appeals that order, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed to fulfill his obligation to develop the record and that the evidence did not support his determination that she did not have a severe mental impairment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and REMAND.
Ms. Maes filed an application for benefits in February 2002. On the section that asked her to list "the illnesses, injuries or conditions that limit your ability to work," Ms. Maes wrote that she was having trouble walking due to her weight and because she had injured her leg falling. She also stated that she could not concentrate and could not remember words while talking or thinking, and she listed "seizures, depression, leg [and foot] pain, blackouts, falling from equalibrum [sic]" as conditions that limited her ability to work. On the part of the application that asked her to "[t]ell us who may have medical records or other information about your illnesses, injuries or conditions" and to "[l]ist each doctor/HMO/therapist," Ms. Maes gave the name of Dr. J. Shackelford, a doctor she stated had evaluated her for depression. She did not list any other physicians or facilities in that section or anywhere else on the application.
In April, the disability examiner denied Ms. Maes's application; her application was again denied after reconsideration. In June, the SSA appointed counsel to assist Ms. Maes in her request for a hearing before an ALJ.
The hearing took place one year later in June 2003. Ms. Maes appeared with her attorney and offered her own testimony in support of her application. A medical expert, Dr. Arthur E. Schmidt, M.D., testified at the request of the ALJ. A vocational expert, Jeffrey Owen, also testified at the request of the ALJ. In addition, twenty-three exhibits comprising various medical records—including records from Ms. Maes's neurologist (Dr. Banowetz) and several other of her physicians—and Ms. Maes's own description of her condition were offered in support of her application.
The ALJ denied the application. He made his decision at step four of the sequential evaluation process used to analyze disability claims. See Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 710 (10th Cir.1989) ( ). At that step, the relevant inquiry is whether the disability claimant is capable of returning to her past relevant work. See Henrie v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 360 (10th Cir.1993). The ALJ found that Ms. Maes has a seizure disorder and an affective disorder that qualify as severe impairments, but he found that these impairments do not prevent her from performing her past relevant work as a cashier and general clerk. He therefore denied her application for disability benefits, which became the Secretary's final administrative decision when the Appeals Council denied her request for review. The District Court affirmed the Secretary's denial of benefits, and this appeal followed.
The standard of review in a social security appeal is whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Hamilton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1497-98 (10th Cir.1992). Ms. Maes argues that the District Court erred in affirming the ALJ's determination because the ALJ did not apply the correct legal standards in that he failed to fulfill his statutory and regulatory duty to develop the record. She also contends that this failure undermines the ALJ's determination that she was not disabled.
In making a determination regarding disability, the ALJ "shall develop a complete medical history," which includes a "reasonable effort[ ]" to obtain records from the claimant's treating physician. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B). Regulations clarify this statutory duty. Specifically, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(d) states that "[b]efore we make a determination that you are not disabled, we will develop your complete medical history." That regulation also makes clear, however, that the social security claimant has an obligation to assist the ALJ in its duty:
(a) General. In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind or disabled. Therefore, you must bring to our attention everything that shows that you are blind or disabled. This means that you must furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to reach conclusions about your medical impairment(s) and, if material to the determination of whether you are blind or disabled, its effect on your ability to work on a sustained basis. We will consider only impairment(s) you say you have or about which we receive evidence.
. . . .
(c) Your responsibility. You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time you say that you are disabled. You must provide evidence, without redaction, showing how your impairment(s) affects your functioning during the time you say that you are disabled, and any other information that we need to decide your claim.
Given this statute and regulation, we have explained that "[t]he burden to prove disability in a social security case is on the claimant, and to meet this burden, the claimant must furnish medical and other evidence of the existence of the disability." Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1271 (10th Cir.2004). "A social security disability hearing is nonadversarial, however, and the ALJ bears responsibility for ensuring that `an adequate record is developed during the disability hearing consistent with the issues raised.'" Id. (quoting Henrie, 13 F.3d at 360-61). Thus, "`[a]n ALJ has the duty to develop the record by obtaining pertinent, available medical records which come to his attention during the course of the hearing.'" Id. (quoting Carter v. Chater, 73 F.3d 1019, 1022 (10th Cir.1996)) (alteration in original). Nonetheless, in cases such as this one where the claimant was represented by counsel, "`the ALJ should ordinarily be entitled to rely on the claimant's counsel to structure and present [the] claimant's case in a way that the claimant's claims are adequately explored,' and the ALJ `may ordinarily require counsel to identify the issue or issues requiring further development.'" Id. (quoting Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1167 (10th Cir.1997)).
In this case, Ms. Maes argues that the ALJ failed to develop the record because he never sought the records of her treating physician, Dr. James Kimball. Ms. Maes did not bring Dr. Kimball to the attention of the ALJ; she did not list him as one of her physicians on her application for benefits and did not mention him in post-application interviews. Dr. Kimball was, however, carbon-copied on certain correspondence from Dr. Banowetz to Ms. Maes, and Dr. Kimball's name appears on a few additional documents in the administrative record. She seeks a remand that would require the ALJ to procure her medical records from him.
We will not remand on this basis. As Ms. Maes was represented by counsel, the ALJ was entitled to rely on counsel's representation of the claims and records that might be involved, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trivino v. Colvin
...the final decision of the agency.1 The Court's review of that final agency decision is both factual and legal. See Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Hamilton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1497-98 (10th Cir. 1992)) ("The standard of review in a ......
-
Fuller v. Saul, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-cv-00174
...rest on the record . . . and later fault the ALJ for not performing a more exhaustive investigation." Id. (quoting Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093, 1097 (10th Cir. 2008)). "An ALJ's duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is ina......
-
Montanio v. Colvin
...limitations was necessary, she could have sought additional information from Mr. Montanio's healthcare providers. Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093, 1097-98 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding the ALJ generally must recontact the claimant's medicalsources when the ALJ considers an issue that is apparent ......
-
Lewanda S. v. Saul
...of Ms. Bates (R. at 44, 68), so Plaintiff does not show unfairness or prejudice from the ALJ's purported error. See Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093, 1097 (10th Cir. 2008) ("Although the ALJ has the duty to develop the record, such a duty does not permit a claimant, through counsel, to rest on......
-
Table of Cases
...447 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. May 12, 2006), 10th-06 Madron v. Astrue , 646 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2011), 10th-11 Maes v. Astrue , 522 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2008), 10th-08 Magallanes v. Bowen , 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989), §§ 202.2, 202.8, 210.4 Maggard v. Apfel , 167 F.3d 376......
-
Case index
..., 531 F.3d 629 (8 th Cir. July 7, 2008), 8 th -08 Madrid v. Barnhart, 447 F.3d 788 (10 th Cir. May 12, 2006), 10 th -06 Maes v. Astrue , 522 F.3d 1093 (10 th Cir. Apr. 14, 2008), 10 th -08 Case Index-125 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED McLeod v. Astrue , 640 F.3d 881 (9 th Cir. Dec. 16, 20......
-
Table of cases
...447 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. May 12, 2006), 10th-06 Madron v. Astrue , 646 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2011), 10th-11 Maes v. Astrue , 522 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2008), 10th-08 Magallanes v. Bowen , 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989), §§ 202.2, 202.8, 210.4 Maggard v. Apfel , 167 F.3d 376......
-
Case Index
..., 531 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. July 7, 2008), 8th-08 Madrid v. Barnhart , 447 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. May 12, 2006), 10th-06 Maes v. Astrue , 522 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2008), 10th-08 McLeod v. Astrue , 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2010), 9th-10 Moore v. Colvin , 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. Feb......