Robinson v. Barnhart

Decision Date31 January 2003
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A.H-02-1369.,CIV.A.H-02-1369.
PartiesVernon Denise ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Victor N Makris, Attorney at Law, Bellaire, TX, for Plaintiff.

Joseph B Liken, Commissioner of The Social Security Administration, OGC Social Sec, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CRONE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court are Plaintiff Vernon D. Robinson's ("Robinson") and Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart's ("Barnhart" or "the Commissioner") cross-motions for summary judgment. Robinson appeals Administrative Law Judge Harry L. Williams, Jr.'s ("the ALJ" or "Judge Williams"), determination that she is not entitled to receive Title XVI supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Having reviewed the pending motions, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, the administrative record, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that Barnhart's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 13) should be denied, Robinson's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 12) should be granted in part, the ALJ's decision denying benefits should be reversed, and the case should be remanded to the Social Security Administration ("SSA") for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background.

Robinson alleges that she is disabled due to cerebral palsy,1 a hole in her heart, shortness of breath, and bone marrow disease as depression2 and mental retardation.3 Robinson, who was born in 1966, has never held a job. On March 30, 1999, Robinson protectively filed an application for SSI benefits with the SSA, claiming that she has been disabled and unable to work since November 11, 1997. On August 24,1999, she filed a supplemental application for SSI benefits. The SSA denied her claim initially on January 5, 2000, and again on reconsideration on April 10, 2000. On April 13, 2000, Robinson requested an administrative hearing before an ALJ to reconsider the decision.

A hearing was held on July 20, 2001, in Houston, Texas, before Judge Williams at which time he heard testimony from Robinson, who was represented by attorney Michelle Lerandeau-Freeman, and received in evidence numerous medical records pertaining to her condition. Cheryl Swisher, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, was present at the hearing but did not testify. No medical expert was called to testify at the hearing, as the ALJ appeared to consider such testimony premature in light of "so much conflicting evidence" and "too much inconsistent tests." The ALJ indicated that after additional tests were performed, he was planning on conducting a supplemental hearing at which a neurologist would be called to testify. He admonished Robinson, however, that if he got the impression that she was not helping him on these tests, he was "not going to be helpful to [her]." The ALJ ordered a post-hearing psychological consultative exam with IQ4 testing and a vocational report with a functional capacity evaluation, but he never convened another hearing.

On August 22 and 23, 2001, Wayne Gray Alfred, CPC, LPC ("Alfred"), a vocational evaluator, performed a consultative examination of Robinson. Alfred completed a work evaluation report concerning Robinson's physical capacity to perform work-related activities, opining that she demonstrated the ability to lift and carry a 20 to 30 pound box and that "she appeared to have the physical capacity to perform at least light work." Alfred also observed no difficulties with Robinson's "sitting, standing, walking, bending, crouching, squatting, kneeling, reaching, or handling/fingering." He concluded that "[h]er physical capacity did not correspond with those of a person with cerebral palsy." Alfred, however, described her performance as characteristic of a person with mental retardation. According to Alfred, Robinson was "unable to maintain instructions or perform work without continual supervision." He further reported that she was "unable to recognize work errors, had little or no understanding of work procedures, and had no understanding of the meaning or value of work." Additionally, he noted her "work pace was slow and haphazard."

In a psychological evaluation dated August 24, 2001, J.L. Paterson, Ph.D. ("Dr.Paterson"), a psychologist and consultative examiner, diagnosed Robinson with "Depressive disorder NOS" and "Probable .... Borderline intellectual functioning." He noted that Robinson's "affect seemed depressed during the exam," commenting that she "appear[ed] generally physically healthy but depressed." Dr. Paterson observed memory deficiencies, computation difficulties, and deficiencies in general knowledge and abstract thinking, ultimately concluding that Robinson's intellectual functioning "appears to be in the borderline to deficient range." He determined that Robinson had no useful ability to understand, remember, and carry out complex job instructions. Dr. Paterson further assessed Robinson's performance as "Poor" in the following categories: (1) ability to deal with work stress; (2) ability to behave in an emotionally stable manner; and (3) ability to understand, remember, and carry out detailed but not complex job instructions. An assessment of "Poor" denotes an individual's "[a]bility to function in this area is almost absent."

In a decision dated November 1, 2001, the ALJ denied Robinson's application for benefits, concluding that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). The ALJ found that the medical evidence indicated that Robinson had a deformed foot, high blood pressure, and depression. He determined that because the combined effects of these impairments imposed significant limitations on her ability to perform work-related activities, she had a "severe impairment" within the meaning of the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). The ALJ further found that Robinson had "the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work in the unskilled job base" and, therefore, was not disabled as defined under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.967. The ALJ's findings regarding Robinson's residual functional capacity ("RFC") were based in large part on Alfred's assessment as well as a 1998 report prepared by J. Robert Yohman, Ph.D. ("Dr.Yohman"), a neuropsychologist and consultative examiner. Dr. Yohman characterized Robinson as "producing] a profile typical of malingerers," likely due to "conscious feigning or exaggeration of pathology in order to gain some external incentive (e.g., disability income)." The ALJ also took into account Robinson's testimony at the hearing, which he summarized, as follows:

At the hearing, the claimant testified that she cleans, cooks and takes care of her children on a daily basis. She reads the Bible and watches some TV. She does not drive but takes the bus or gets a ride in order to do the grocery shopping. She testified that she has difficulty sleeping—she is up until 4 a.m. and that she stays depressed. She walks to her doctor's office, which is one mile away. She stated that sitting makes her back hurt and that she was able to move a sofa and a table.

On March 26, 2002, Robinson appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council of the SSA's Office of Hearings and Appeals. On April 2, 2002, the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's determination, rendering his opinion the final decision of the Commissioner. See Sims v. Apfel 530 U.S. 103, 107, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000). Robinson filed the instant action on April 8, 2002, contesting the Commissioner's denial of her claim for benefits.

II. Analysis
A. Statutory Bases for Benefits

SSI benefits are authorized by Title XVI of the Act and are funded by general tax revenues. See Nobles v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:00-CV-128, 2002 WL 553735, at *1 (E.D.Tex. Apr.10, 2002) (citing SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOcial SECURITY HANDBOOK, § 2100 (14th ed.2001)). "The SSI Program is a general public assistance measure providing an additional resource to the aged, blind, and disabled to assure that their income does not fall below the poverty line." Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 416.110. "Eligibility for SSI is based upon proof of indigence and disability." Nobles, 2002 WL 553735, at *1 (emphasis in original) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 92-231 (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4989, 5132-5133; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1382(a), 1382c(a)(3)(A)-(C)). A claimant applying to the SSI program cannot receive payment for any period of disability predating the month in which she applies for benefits, no matter how long she has actually been disabled. See Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 495 n. 1 (5th Cir.1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.335); Torres v. Chater, 125 F.3d 166,171 n. 1 (3d Cir.1997); Perkins v. Chater, 107 F.3d 1290, 1295 (7th Cir.1997); Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 389 (10th Cir.1995). The applicable regulation provides:

When you file an application in the month that you meet all the other requirements for eligibility, the earliest month for which we can pay you benefits is the month following the month you filed the application. If you file an application after the month you first meet all the other requirements for eligibility, we cannot pay you for the month in which your application is filed or any months before that month.

20 C.F.R. § 416.335. Hence, the month following an application, here, April 1999, fixes the earliest date from which benefits can be paid. Eligibility for SSI payments, however, is not dependent on insured status. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a).

Social Security disability insurance benefits are authorized by Title II of the Act and are funded by Social Security taxes. See Nobles, 2002 WL 553735, at *1 n. 2 (citing SOCIAL SECURITY HANDBOOK, § 2100). The disability insurance program "provides income to individuals who are forced into...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Rasmussen v. Colvin, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-2033
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 24 Agosto 2016
    ...we cannot pay you for the month in which your application is filed or any months before that month."); Robinson v. Barnhart, 248 F.Supp.2d 607, 612 (S.D. Tex. 2003) ("A claimant applying to the SSI program cannot receive payment for any period of disability predating the month in which she ......
  • Renovato v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 15 Marzo 2021
    ...are blind or disabled with income and resources below the statutory limits set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a). See Robinson v. Barnhart, 248 F. Supp. 2d 607, 612 (S.D. Tex. 2003) ("Eligibility for SSI is based upon proof of indigence and disability." (citationomitted)). For both types of bene......
  • Snoe v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 14 Julio 2020
    ...income and resources below the statutory limits set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1381; see also Robinson v. Barnhart, 248 F. Supp. 2d 607, 612 (S.D. Tex. 2003) ("Eligibility for SSI is based upon proof of indigence and disability.") (emphasis in original) (internal citation......
  • Barton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3229
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • 16 Mayo 2016
    ...factors before rejecting or affording little weight to a treating physician's opinion. (emphasis added). Robinson v. Barnhart, 248 F.Supp.2d 607, 625 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (citing Newton, 209 F.3d at 456; Myers, 238 F.3d at 621). The ALJ did not do so in this case, which constitutes error. Claim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...n.16 (10th Cir. 1985) ( citing Dong Sik Kwon v. INS , 646 F.2d 909, 916 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). Followed , Robinson v. Barnhart , 248 F. Supp.2d 607, 629 (S.D. Tex. 2003); Bridges v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. , 278 F. Supp.2d 797, 804 (N.D. Tex. 2003). The Fifth Circuit reitera......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...v. Apfel , No. 98-56992, 232 F.3d 896 (Table), 2000 WL 1028946 (9th Cir. July 26, 2000) (unpub.), § 1601 Robinson v. Barnhart , 248 F. Supp.2d 607 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2003), §§ 1202.6, 1203.6, 1603.5 Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. Apr. 6, 2004), 8th-09, 10th-04 Robinson v. C......
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • 3 Agosto 2014
    ...n.16 (10th Cir. 1985) ( citing Dong Sik Kwon v. INS , 646 F.2d 909, 916 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). Followed , Robinson v. Barnhart , 248 F. Supp.2d 607, 629 (S.D. Tex. 2003); Bridges v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. , 278 F. Supp.2d 797, 804 (N.D. Tex. 2003). The Fifth Circuit reitera......
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2015
    ...n.16 (10th Cir. 1985) ( citing Dong Sik Kwon v. INS , 646 F.2d 909, 916 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). Followed , Robinson v. Barnhart , 248 F. Supp.2d 607, 629 (S.D. Tex. 2003); Bridges v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. , 278 F. Supp.2d 797, 804 (N.D. Tex. 2003). The Fifth Circuit reitera......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT