Marnell v. Barnhart
| Decision Date | 31 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. C02-4020-PAZ.,C02-4020-PAZ. |
| Citation | 253 F.Supp.2d 1052 |
| Parties | David MARNELL, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Dennis J. Mahr, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.
Martha A. Fagg, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sioux City IA, for Defendant,
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................1054
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................1054
A. Procedural Background.....................................1056
B. Factual Background........................................1056
Introduction .................................................1056
2. Marnell's Hearing Testimony................................1061
3. Testimony of Nancy Marnell.................................1061
4. Testimony of Roy Marnell...................................1066
5. Marnell's medical history .................................1067
a. Physical functioning.......................................1068
b. Psychological functioning..................................1073
6. Vocational expert's testimony..............................1073
DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS, THE BURDEN OF PROOF, AND
THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD............................1073
A. The Substantial Evidence Standard .........................1073
B. Disability Determination...................................1075
1. Child claimants............................................1075
2. Adult claimants...........................................1077
IV. ANALYSIS.................................................1078
A. Application for Benefits Under Title XVI...................1078
1. Application for SSI benefits as a child....................1078
2. Application for SSI benefits as an adult ..................1079
B. Application for DI Benefits Under Title II.................1083
C. Aplication for Child's Insurance Benefits..................1084
V. CONCLUSION ..............................................1084
The plaintiff Thomas Marnell ("Marnell") appeals a concurrent decision by an administrative law judge ( ALJ ), following three separate hearings, to deny him Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance ("DI") benefits. Marnell argues the ALJ erred in several respects in denying him benefits. (See Doc. Nos. 12 & 16)
Marnell applied for benefits on multiple occasions. He first applied for SSI benefits as a disabled child pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act on April 19, 1983. The application was denied on June 27, 1983, and no appeal was filed. (See R. 51, 111; Doc. No. 12, p. 1)
Marnell next applied for SSI benefits under Title XVI on April 2, 1987, with a protective filing date of March 30, 1987. (R. 289-94) The claim was denied initially on May 18, 1987 (R. 295-97), and upon reconsideration on August 4, 1987 (R. 298-300). It appears no appeal was filed.1
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 110 S.Ct. 885, 896, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990), Marnell filed an application for SSI benefits as a disabled child on September 14, 1992, with a protective filing date of April 19, 1983.2 (R. 285-88; see R. 51 & Doc. No. 15 at 1-2, both citing Zebley) This application was denied initially on February 16, 1993 (R. 302-04; 354-55), and upon reconsideration on July 27, 1993 (R. 307-310; 385-86). Marnell filed a request for hearing in August 1993. (See R. Ill)
In the meantime, Marnell filed a claim on September 21, 1992, seeking child's disability insurance benefits under Title II, based on his father's earnings. (R. 24, 111-12; Doc. No. 15 at 2; Doc. No. 12 at 1) He filed a separate application for benefits as an adult, alleging a disability onset date of April 1, 1992.3 (R. 83, 111-12; Doc. No. 15 at 2) Both of those claims were escalated to the hearing level for consideration. (See R. 112)4
A hearing was held before ALJ Franklin D. Carroll on August 4, 1994, in South Sioux City, Nebraska, on three of Marnell's claims; i.e., the September 14, 1992, Zebley application for benefits as a disabled child; the September 21, 1992, application for child's disability insurance benefits; and the September 1992 application for benefits as an adult. (See R. 51, 108-77) Two additional hearings were held on Marnell's applications, one on March 28, 1995 (R. 178-244), and one on April 11, 1996 (R. 245-84), both before ALJ Robert H. Burgess.5 On March 20, 1998, ALJ Burgess issued three concurrent opinions, denying all of Marnell's claims. (R. 21-44; 48-76; 80-104) On May 20, 1998, Marnell requested a review by the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration. Marnell's attorney wrote two letters in 2001, to inquire about the status of the case (see letters dated 2/16/01 and 9/26/01, at R. 11 & 13, respectively). The Appeals Council finally denied Marnell's request for review on February 22, 2002 (R. 8-10) making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
Marnell filed a timely Complaint in this court on March 26, 2002, seeking judicial review of the ALJ's rulings. (Doc. No. 3) The parties consented to jurisdiction over this action by a United States Magistrate Judge, and on April 2, 2002, Chief Judge Mark W. Bennett transferred the case to the undersigned for final disposition. (Doc. No. 4) Marnell filed a brief supporting his claim on August 28, 2002 (Doc. No. 12). On November 29, 2002, the Commissioner filed a responsive brief (Doc. No. 15). Marnell filed a reply brief on December 10, 2002 (Doc. No. 16) The court now deems the matter fully submitted, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), turns to a review of Marnell's claims for benefits.
The court notes at the outset that this is a difficult case for several reasons. The first hurdle is the scope of the record under review. Marnell's applications for benefits and their course through the administrative system encompass nearly nineteen years, three administrative hearings, three separate ALJ opinions, and eighteen years of medical and psychological records, resulting in a record nearly 1,000 pages long. The second, and more problematic, hurdle is the nature of Marnell's claimed disability. Marnell lost the vision in his right eye in 1978, due to a childhood accident. He apparently has had some problems with the vision in his left eye, although, as discussed more fully below, the record is inconsistent with regard to the degree of these problems. However, also as discussed below, Marnell's eye problems, standing alone, do not appear to be disabling. The most difficult aspect of this case is Marnell's psychological makeup. Although not diagnosed with any particular mental illness or easily defined personality disorder, it is evident Marnell has significant difficulties in dealing with others, acting appropriately in social and work situations, and controlling his behavior.
The court has reviewed every page of the voluminous record and will not summarize the entire record here. What follows are highlights from the record that present the background for discussing Marnell's claims for benefits.
Except for appropriate citations to the record, the court otherwise will not differentiate between the three hearings in discussing the hearing testimony as a whole.
Marnell was born on August 17, 1967. He is single, 5'6" tall and weighs about 130 pounds. He is right-handed. (R. 115) Marnell lost his right eye at age 11, when he was shot in the eye with a BB. (R. 117)
Marnell repeated kindergarten, first grade, and third grade, due to poor grades. (R. 133) Marnell finished the ninth grade in school, and has not received any further education.6 He was never a good student, and although he liked science and history, he never liked school in general, stating, (R. 134, 138) H was truant frequently, missing 15 to 20 days a year, or leaving school before the day was over because he did not want to be there. Marnell stated he "disliked the teachers and they seemed to me they weren't, I'd go to ask a question and they'd tell me to be quiet and sit down and do my work." (R. 134-35) Marnell also would fake illness because "it worked on my parents [and was] a way to get out of school." (R. 142)
Marnell's parents moved a lot when he was in school, and as a result, he attended five or six different grade schools in Iowa, and three more schools in Louisiana. He was sometimes in "special classes" for reading and math. (R. 135-36) He last attended school in Whiting, Iowa, and stated the Whiting school was harder than other schools he had attended. He did not get along well there "[b]cause the Whiting School was set up for the rich kids and if you didn't have money, you weren't, you know, you weren't nothing." (R. 136; see R. 187-88) His perception "made a lot of difference as far as [his] attitude [toward] faculty and toward the school itself." (R. 136-37) He felt he was treated differently than "the richest farmer's kids in that school," stating it was "like I was a lower class human being." (R. 137) He felt the "rich kids" were given extra time to get things right, whereas if he had trouble with something, he was deprived of recesses and made to repeat tasks "until I got it right." (Id.)
Of the ten grade schools Marnell attended, he felt most of them treated him unfairly. In his opinion, the teachers did not do their jobs and verbally abused students. He admitted he got into fights with his teachers and sometimes got detention for cussing at his teachers. (R. 137-38, 142-43) He got into frequent fights with other students, as well. He stated that when he was in ninth grade, an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz v. Barnhart
...ex rel. Booker-Morgan v. Barnhart, 266 F.Supp.2d 818, 819, 821-23 (N.D.Ill.2003) (collecting cases); Marnell v. Barnhart, 253 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1055, 1076 n. 13 (N.D.Iowa 2003); Mayfield v. Barnhart, No. 01 C 9418, 2003 WL 223310, at *6-7 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 30, 2003); Jefferson v. Barnhart, 209 F......
-
Taylor ex rel. Mckinnies v. Barnhart
...385-86 (7th Cir.1984) (stating an ALJ cannot "pick and choose" only the evidence that supports his position); Marnell v. Barnhart, 253 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1082 (N.D.Iowa 2003) ("[T]he ALJ's failure to substantiate his conclusions adequately constitutes error."); cf. Hon v. Heckler, 585 F.Supp. ......
-
Box ex rel. P.B.P. v. Colvin
...choose from a medical opinion, using only those parts that are favorable to a finding of non[-]disability."); Marnell v. Barnhart, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1082 (N.D. Iowa 2003) ("The ALJ's failure to substantiate his conclusions adequately constitutes error.") As the Eighth Circuit noted: An ......
-
Black ex rel. O.L. v. Colvin
...choose from a medical opinion, using only those parts that are favorable to a finding of non[-]disability."); Marnell v. Barnhart, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1082 (N.D. Iowa 2003) ("The ALJ'sfailure to substantiate his conclusions adequately constitutes error.") As the Eighth Circuit noted:An AL......