Cheryl J. Schwandt v. Nancy A. Berryhill
926 F.3d 1004
8th Cir.2019Background
- Cheryl Schwandt applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits alleging knee avascular necrosis and chronic pain with an onset date of January 1, 2012; the agency initially (erroneously) recorded an onset date of January 1, 2001 and paid overpayments covering Feb 2011–May 2012.
- The agency later discovered the error and sought recovery of overpayments; an employee learned Schwandt’s employer reported a wage "subsidy" suggesting she may not have engaged in substantial gainful activity after 2009.
- An agency disability examiner reopened the July 2012 favorable determination (seeking to consider an earlier onset of Dec 31, 2009) to investigate the subsidy information; after review the agency concluded onset remained Jan 1, 2012.
- Schwandt requested an ALJ hearing to try to obtain the earlier 2009 onset; the ALJ informed her the hearing would cover Dec 31, 2009 through the present despite Schwandt’s objection not to revisit 2012 onward.
- The ALJ found Schwandt not disabled from Dec 31, 2009 onward: engaged in substantial gainful activity 2009–2011; not disabled after Jan 1, 2012 because she could perform past relevant work as a dental hygienist.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ’s disability determination (while remanding the overpayment waiver issue); Schwandt appealed the disability ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency properly reopened the July 2012 favorable determination | Schwandt: examiner and ALJ reopened without articulating "good cause" or findings as required by regs | Agency: examiner cited new and material information (employer subsidy data) justifying reopening; ALJ reconsideration falls under different rules when claimant requests review | Reopening by examiner justified as based on new/material evidence; ALJ permissibly reconsidered under §404.946(a) and provided adequate notice |
| Whether ALJ denied due process by not stating reasons to reopen before hearing | Schwandt: lacked notice of the reasons the ALJ would question the favorable determination | Agency: ALJ notified Schwandt the hearing covered 2009–present, postponed to allow preparation, and Schwandt understood potential outcomes | No due process violation; notice was adequate and Schwandt was informed and heard |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted treating physician opinions (Dr. Berglund) | Schwandt: treating physician restricted standing and lifting and opined sedentary work only; ALJ gave insufficient weight | Agency: ALJ incorporated standing limit, declined to give ultimate disability opinion controlling, and limited lifting restriction based on objective findings and activities | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s weighting: incorporated some limits, rejected others due to inconsistent objective findings and activities |
| Whether ALJ erred in assessing credibility, lay witness statements, and step-four (past work) finding | Schwandt: testimony, lay statements, need for recovery days and accommodations make her unable to perform past work | Agency: medical records, normal strength/exam findings, daily activities, medication effectiveness, and vocational expert support past work ability | ALJ reasonably discounted testimony/lay statements and relied on vocational expert; substantial evidence supports finding Schwandt can perform past relevant work |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (explains the sequential evaluation process for disability)
- Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266 (jurisdictional guidance where related agency proceedings continue)
- Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082 (treating physician weight and substantial-evidence review)
- Highfill v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 112 (ALJ reconsideration authority under § 404.946)
- Higginbotham v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 408 (standards on review of agency factual findings)
- Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421 (new evidence for reopening must be after initial determination)
- Cieutat v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 348 (materiality standard for new evidence)
- Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (factors for evaluating subjective complaints of pain)
- Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201 (standing restriction and ability to perform "light" work)
- Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563 (vocational expert testimony can support step-four past work finding)