Harp v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
2:20-cv-01743
| E.D. Wis. | Mar 11, 2022Background
- Rebecca Harp was awarded SSDI in 2015 (amended onset Aug 20, 2014) under Grid Rule 202.06 based on a light RFC.
- SSA later discovered Harp received substantial payments from Wisconsin’s IRIS/Family Care programs as a paid care provider for her disabled daughter and had not reported those earnings.
- SSA reopened Harp’s 2012/2015 award under the “obtained by fraud or similar fault” rule and held a hearing; Harp proceeded pro se.
- Administrative record shows Harp applied/hired as a care provider, completed employment forms and submitted payroll timesheets documenting hours, with earnings far above SGA monthly limits (2015–2018 figures cited).
- ALJ found Harp engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA) during Aug 2014–Feb 2015 and Nov 2015–Sep 2016, concluded no disability through last insured date (Sept 30, 2016), and found Harp failed to report earnings to SSA.
- District court affirmed: Harp’s challenges (medical evidence, nature of work, foster-care records, and reopening procedure) did not undermine the SGA/reopening determination.
Issues
| Issue | Harp’s Argument | Kijakazi’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not considering medical evidence of disability | Harp: ALJ ignored spinal impairment evidence and should have evaluated RFC/medical record | SSA: Once SGA established, medical evaluation/RFC irrelevant under §404.1520(b) | Court: ALJ need not reach medical steps after finding SGA; no error |
| Whether Harp’s IRIS earnings constituted SGA / whether ALJ improperly discounted witness testimony | Harp: She did not perform meaningful care; payments lawful under program and not taxable; aides’ testimony shows she did nothing | SSA: Harp applied as employee, submitted W-4, I-9, timesheets, and was paid for nonmedical tasks beyond typical family care; wages exceed SGA benchmarks | Court: ALJ reasonably found earnings reflected paid work and discounted limited witness testimony; SGA established |
| Whether foster-care and children’s court records required different analysis | Harp: She placed daughter in foster care because of disability and only later resumed custodial role; daughter’s condition shows Harp couldn’t do paid care | SSA: Child’s condition and placement are irrelevant to whether Harp was paid for and performed services at SGA level | Court: Court agrees those records don’t negate evidence Harp billed/was paid for care; not material to SGA finding |
| Whether SSA properly reopened the prior favorable decision and provided hearing | Harp: She didn’t request an ALJ hearing after reconsideration; reopening was improper/tainted by prosecution involvement | SSA: Reopening under §404.988(c) and §405(u) is proper when fraud/similar fault suspected; ALJ provided notice and hearing on proposed revision | Court: Reopening permitted given undisputed unreported employment at SGA levels and claimant’s prior notice duty; hearing properly afforded |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2020) (standards for judicial review of ALJ decisions)
- Prill v. Kijakazi, 23 F.4th 738 (7th Cir. 2022) (definition of substantial evidence/deference)
- Jones v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 191 (7th Cir. 1994) (SGA ends claim regardless of medical evidence)
- Stepp v. Colvin, 795 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for overturning ALJ credibility findings)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts do not reweigh ALJ evidence assessments)
- Jaxson v. Saul, 970 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2020) (reopening/redetermination when fraud suspected)