Cutter v. Colvin
673 F. App'x 78
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Cutter applied for Social Security disability benefits with an alleged onset date of October 8, 2010; ALJ denied benefits on June 4, 2012 and the denial was later affirmed by the district court.
- Cutter worked in substantial gainful employment for GEICO from March 28, 2011 to October 8, 2011, and does not contest that he was not disabled during that period.
- Cutter contends the Agency failed to consider whether his impairments after leaving GEICO could be expected to last 12 continuous months, thereby meeting the statutory duration requirement.
- The ALJ treated Cutter’s period of employment as dispositive of the duration requirement and did not fully evaluate post-employment disability onset.
- The Second Circuit concluded the ALJ erred by not considering whether Cutter’s post-employment impairments could be expected to last 12 months and that the error was not harmless; it vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- Note: A different ALJ later found Cutter disabled with an onset date of June 6, 2012 (post-dating the ALJ decision at issue here).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred by failing to consider if Cutter’s impairments after he left work could be expected to last 12 months | Cutter: ALJ should evaluate post-employment period to determine if impairments were expected to last continuous 12 months after October 8, 2011 | Commissioner: Cutter’s return to work precludes application of the statutory “expected to last” duration test; §404.1520(b) and Barnhart v. Walton bar consideration | Court: ALJ erred — post-employment period must be considered; Barnhart and the regulations do not automatically foreclose review where claimant returned to work temporarily; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Brault v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Commissioner’s decision)
- Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2008) (failure to apply correct legal standards is reversible error)
- Bastien v. Califano, 572 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1978) (disability application remains in effect until final decision; claimant can prevail if disabled at any time up to decision)
- McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (step one addresses whether claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity)
- Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (2002) (discussion of duration requirement when claimant actually returned to work)