Nettles v. Sullivan, 91-2346
| Citation | 956 F.2d 820 |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2346,91-2346 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16447A, 2 NDLR P 236 Lavada J. NETTLES, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Frederick S. Spencer, Mountain Home, Ark., for appellant.
Edward H. Funston, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before ARNOLD, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, and WELLFORD, * Senior Circuit Judge.
This is a social security case in which the claimant, Lavada Nettles, appeals from the district court's order upholding the Secretary of Health and Human Service's denial of disability insurance benefits. Nettles' claim resulted from a fall which occurred at the Mar-Bax Shirt Company, her former employer, on April 29, 1985. Since that time, the claimant has sought various treatments for the severe back pain she claims to experience. She alleges that she cannot walk normally and suffers numbness in her legs. The claimant also allegedly suffers from persistent headaches and stomach problems.
On October 6, 1986, the claimant filed for disability benefits, stating that she became unable to work as of July 25, 1986. The administrative law judge ("ALJ") considered himself bound by the onset date cited by the claimant and denied benefits because claimant was unable to show that she had not engaged in a "substantial gainful activity" for twelve (12) continuous months, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The district court reversed and remanded to the ALJ to consider all relevant factors to determine the correct onset date for the disability claim. The ALJ held a supplemental hearing and found that the proper onset date was May 8, 1985, approximately one week after the claimant's fall at the shirt factory. The ALJ recommended denial of benefits because claimant started working at the Shealy Institute on April 14, 1987, and she had previously worked for about six months at Mar-Bax. The claimant was, therefore, unable to prove that she was incapable of engaging in a "substantial gainful activity" for no less than twelve continuous months.
In 1989, the claimant sought further review, but the Appeals Council denied this request. The claimant then appealed to the district court which upheld the decision of the ALJ and the Secretary concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings. Specifically, the district court held that the claimant's job at the Mar-Bax factory between January and July of 1986 constituted a successful work attempt under Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 84-25. Accordingly, the claimant was found to be unable to prove that she had not engaged in a substantial gainful activity for twelve months. The district court also held that the employment at the Shealy Institute was a substantial gainful activity, at least through May 18, 1989.
The claimant now appeals to this court and requests benefits for the closed period from May 1985, through April 1987. She also claims benefits for a second period beginning in April 1987, when she became employed by the Shealy Institute, through the date of her hearing when she was still engaged in Shealy Institute employment. Any claim for present or future disability is not before us in this record and our decision to affirm serves as no bar to any such subsequent claim.
We review this matter to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the secretary's decision to deny benefits. Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1989).
The relevant regulations provide:
If you are working and the work you are doing is substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled regardless of your medical condition or your age, education, and work experience.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). The definition of disability is the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity ... 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). Work will normally be considered a "substantial gainful activity" if "earnings average[ ] more than $300 a month in calender years after 1979 and before 1990." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574(b)(2). Certain activities, however, which last a short period of time may be considered "unsuccessful work attempts". SSR 84-25. These activities may not count as substantial gainful activities under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Social Security Ruling 84-25 provides:
UWA [unsuccessful work attempt] Criteria--Duration and Conditions of Work
....
2. Work Effort of Between 3 and 6 Months
If work lasted more than 3 months, it must have ended or have been reduced to the non-SGA [substantial gainful activity] level within 6 months due to the impairment or to the removal of special conditions ... related to the impairment that are essential to the further performance of work and:
a. There must have been frequent absences due to the impairment; or
b. The work must have been unsatisfactory due to the impairment; or
c. The work must have been done during a period of temporary remission of the impairment; or
d. The work must have been done under special conditions.
....
3. Work Effort of Over 6 Months
SGA-level work lasting more than 6 months cannot be a UWA regardless of why it ended or was reduced to the non-SGA level.
The claimant maintains that the district court and the Secretary erred by determining that her work for Mar-Bax between January and July, 1986 was a successful work attempt demonstrating her ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. She also alleges that her later position with the Shealy Institute was not a substantial gainful activity because it was a sheltered environment.
We are persuaded that the Secretary and the district court, under the circumstances, properly relied on the presumption that one who earns more than $300 a month is involved in a substantial gainful activity. Since beginning work at the Shealy Institute, the claimant has averaged over $600 a month in earnings. Claimant has failed to refer us to any authority or facts to suggest deviation from the social security regulations. This case is unlike Thompson v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 276 (8th Cir.1991), in which we held that a man who suffered frequent, violent seizures was not engaged in substantial gainful activity as an aide to a quadriplegic because earnings were charity rather than compensation. The record does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerrero v. Apfel
...4 F.3d 590, 594-95 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Alexander v. Richardson, 451 F.2d 1185, 1186 (10th Cir.1971)); see also Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 823 (8th Cir.1992) (a disability benefits claimant who missed work three or four days a month as a result of a painful back condition did not ......
-
Curtis v. Sullivan, Civ. No. 91-476-JD.
...of unsuccessful work attempts assumes the work attempt would otherwise be substantial gainful activity. See Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir.1992). VI. Application of the The ALJ stated "because the claimant's 30 days of cashier work did not meet the definition of substantial......
-
Darr v. Astrue
...been able to prove that she was incapable of engaging in substantial gainful activity for at least twelve months. See Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1992). However, the fact that she had worked is at least some evidence of her ability to perform some work-related activitie......
-
James v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...In addition, the Commissioner argues the decision was "consistent with the decisions of other circuits." (Id., citing Nettles v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 820 (8th Cir.1992); Barina v. Shalala, 35 F.3d 555 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpub.) Kenney v. Barnhart, 125 F. App'x 83, 84 (8th Cir. 2005) (unpub.)). ......