Josephine L. Cage v. Commissioner of Social Security
692 F.3d 118
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Cage appeals SSA denial of SSI benefits after ALJ found DAA materiality negating disability.
- ALJ concluded Cage met some impairments but would not be disabled absent DAA, using the five-step framework.
- CAAA amended disability definition to exclude DAA-caused disability, placing burden on claimant to prove immateriality.
- Cage sought retroactive benefits for 2004–2008 periods; district court upheld ALJ’s initial denial.
- SSA Appeals Council denied review; later reapplication granted benefits in 2009 based on different record.
- Issue on appeal is whether burden of proof and evidence support finding of DAA materiality and the ALJ’s determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden on DAA materiality | Cage argues SSA bears burden | SSA bears burden? (resembling district) | Claimant bears burden to prove immateriality |
| Sufficiency of evidence for absence of DAA impact | Record insufficient absence of DAA to show disability without it | Record supports improvement without DAA via evidence | Substantial evidence supports improved functioning without DAA |
| Effect of missing predictive opinion | No medical opinion predicting impairment absent DAA | Predictive opinions not required | Not required to have predictive medical opinion to find materiality |
| Teletype guidance on burden | Teletype suggests Commissioner bears burden | Teletype unpromulgated; not controlling | Teletype not persuasive; burden remains with claimant |
| Impact of later favorable 2009 ruling | 2009 ruling supports challenge | Ruling based on different record; not controlling for original application | 2009 ruling does not undermine substantial-evidence basis of 2008 decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2007) (DAA immateriality burden on claimant; strong policy grounds)
- Brueggemann v. Barnhart, 348 F.3d 689 (8th Cir. 2003) (DAA materiality burden on claimant; tie to CAAA aims)
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (DAA materiality burden on claimant; evidence-based approach)
- Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 1999) (DAA materiality burden on claimant; early precedent)
- Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006) (Teletype interpretation debated; burden allocation disputed)
- Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 1999) (Five-step framework; DAA materiality context)