Brewster v. Kijakazi
4:20-cv-00771
W.D. Mo.Dec 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Bart Wayne Brewster challenged the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits.
- The District Court previously affirmed the Commissioner’s denial and required Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misstating the law and record.
- The issue centered around briefs submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel that inaccurately described both governing law and facts in the record.
- Plaintiff’s application was governed by revised Social Security regulations effective for claims filed after March 27, 2017.
- Only attorney Cathleen Shine signed and filed the briefs, making her the relevant party for possible sanctions under Rule 11.
- The court reviewed the responses of both parties before deciding not to impose sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misstatement of law (re: non-examining consultant) | Opinions not substantial evidence if not from treating/exam. | Consultants' opinions can constitute substantial evidence under new/old regs. | Counsel misstated law, but no sanction imposed |
| Whether breach was sanctionable under Rule 11 | Good faith, cited regulations, argument not misleading | Acknowledged gravity, deferred to court on sanctions | No sanctions warranted, admonishment only |
| Misstatement of ALJ's factual findings on job #s | ALJ failed to make finding that certain jobs existed in # | ALJ’s chart explicitly set out the jobs & numbers in the record | Counsel misstated record, no intent to mislead, no sanction |
| Application of newer SSA regulations to claim | Argued law unchanged, cited outdated case law | Cited Berutti and new regulations as controlling | Newer regulations apply; Plaintiff's counsel misstated law |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2007) (established exceptions to reliance on non-examining physician opinions)
- Harvey v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2004) (recognized non-examining physician’s opinion may be substantial evidence with other support)
- Adams v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2017) (objective standard for Rule 11 sanctions)