Senne v. Apfel
| Decision Date | 17 November 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1799WM,99-1799WM |
| Citation | 198 F.3d 1065 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 1999) Jesse Senne, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Senne appeals the denial of his application for social-security disability benefits. Mr. Senne argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) inadequately evaluated whether he suffered from a listed impairment. The District Court upheld the denial. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Mr. Senne is a 42-year-old man who worked as a transport loader from 1976 until December 14, 1991. On November 7, 1991, Mr. Senne injured his left wrist in a work-place accident. On December 14, 1991, the alleged onset date of his disability, Mr. Senne was also diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists. Between January 21, 1992, and March 24, 1994, Mr. Senne underwent seven surgeries on his left wrist; the surgeries were followed by periods of casting, splinting, and physical therapy. The initial surgeries, undertaken to repair the wrist injury and the carpal tunnel syndrome, were unsuccessful and led both to further complications of his condition and to the later surgeries. Mr. Senne filed an application for disability benefits. His claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. He then filed a request for a hearing.
At his hearing, Mr. Senne claimed, among other things, that his left-wrist impairment qualified him for benefits under Listing 1.13, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt P, app. 1.1 Mr. Senne argued that, as required by this listing, he had undergone a series of surgical procedures that had not restored the function of his left wrist within 12 months. The ALJ found that Mr. Senne had injured his left wrist and had undergone, over a period of years, multiple surgeries on his wrist to correct the injury. The ALJ did not discuss whether any of the surgeries were "staged" within the meaning of Listing 1.13. He did find, however, that the purpose of one surgery was to remove support wires from a previous operation. The ALJ did not discuss whether the purpose of the surgeries was to restore a major function of the wrist. He did find that, even after the surgeries, Mr. Senne had a severe impairment of the wrist that restricted his ability to perform gross or fine manipulations with his left hand.
The ALJ rejected Mr. Senne's claim that his impairment met or equaled a listed impairment. The ALJ did not discuss either Listing 1.13 or any other listing specifically. He noted only that "a review of the medical evidence" supported a conclusion that the impairment did "not meet listing level severity." The ALJ also relied on his belief that Mr. Senne had not claimed a listed impairment, and that he was claiming only insufficient residual functional capacity to perform substantial gainful activity. Mr. Senne's lawyer, however, had stated at the hearing and in two letters to the ALJ that Mr. Senne was claiming a listed impairment. Ultimately, the ALJ found that Mr. Senne's severe impairment prevented him from performing his past work. But the ALJ also found that Mr. Senne could engage in other light and sedentary work, and denied his claim on that basis. Mr. Senne appealed the denial of his claim, and the Appeals Council denied review.
On appeal, Mr. Senne argues that the ALJ insufficiently explained the finding that he did not suffer from a listed impairment. Mr. Senne contends that an ALJ must make specific findings whenever a claimant's impairment may meet the requirements of a listed impairment. See Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frieden v. Colvin
...controlling weight should not be given to Dr. Long's opinion. See Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798, 806 (8th Cir. 2008); Senne v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999) ("We have consistently held that a deficiency in opinion-writing is not a sufficient reason for setting aside an administr......
-
Reinhardt v. Colvin
...he read the hand-written notation to say 'walk' rather than 'work' and any error by the ALJ was therefore harmless."); Senne v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999) ("We have consistently held that a deficiency in opinion-writing is not a sufficientreason for setting aside an administ......
-
Tobin v. Astrue
...for setting aside an administrative finding where the deficiency had no practical effect on the outcome of the case." Senne v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999). The court finds that any such deficiency does not have an effect on the outcome of Plaintiff's case as the ALJ's decisio......
-
Bonner v. Colvin
...full range of sedentary work; therefore, the deficiency was not a sufficient reason to set aside the ALJ's decision); Senne v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999) ("We have consistently held that a deficiency in opinion-writing is not a sufficient reason for setting aside an administ......
-
Case Index
..., 529 F.3d. 818 (8th Cir. June 23, 2008), 8th-08 Scott v. Barnhart , 297 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. July 22, 2002), 7th-02 Senne v. Apfel , 198 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999), 8th-99 Shontos v. Barnhart , 328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. May 7, 2003), 8th-03 Yurt v. Colvin , 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. July 1......
-
Case survey
...advisor, as authorized by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2), for help in making her decision. Id. f. Eighth Circuit (1) (1) In Senne v. Apfel , 198 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 1999), the Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that the ALJ insufficiently explained the finding that the claimant did not ......
-
Table of cases
...v. Astrue , 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2013), 2d-13 Sells v. Shalala , 48 F.3d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1995), § 106.3 Senne v. Apfel , 198 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999), 8th-08, 8th-99, §§ 104.1, 104.7 Sepulveda v. Callahan , 2 F. Supp.2d 212, 214 (D.P.R. 1998), §§ 101.3, 202.2, 606.1......
-
Case index
..., 529 F.3d. 818 (8 th Cir. June 23, 2008), 8 th -08 Scott v. Barnhart , 297 F.3d 589 (7 th Cir. July 22, 2002), 7 th -02 Senne v. Apfel , 198 F.3d 1065 (8 th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999), 8 th -99 Shontos v. Barnhart , 328 F.3d 418 (8 th Cir. May 7, 2003), 8 th -03 § 105 RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY......