Kevin Byes v. Michael J. Astrue
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16004
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Byes applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income on July 30, 2007, alleging disability since November 2005.
- An ALJ denied benefits; Byes, born August 9, 1965, was 40 at onset and 44 at the ALJ decision, with a tenth-grade education including special education.
- Byes past work included farming, labor, truck driving, and road maintenance, claiming these jobs required writing reports and technical skills.
- Medical treatment from September 2006 covered cellulitis, tooth abscess, hernias, back/neck pain, headaches, myalgia, and arthritis.
- ALJ applied the five-step regulatory framework and found Byes not disabled, with a residual functional capacity for light work and a finding under Medical-Vocational Rule 202.18.
- The district court affirmed except on Byes’s challenge to the absence of mental-impairment findings; Byes appealed challenging the mental impairment record and harmless-error ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ adequately developed the mental-impairment record | Byes contends insufficient record supports no severe mental impairment | ALJ reasonably concluded no severe mental impairment despite limited evidence | Substantial evidence supports no severe mental impairment; no reversible error. |
| Whether the grid rule misapplied 202.18 was harmless error | ALJ used incorrect rule; border-line age could yield benefits under 201.17 | Error was harmless; proper rule would still yield not disabled | Harmless error; still not disabled under the proper rule. |
| Whether Byes’s age was borderline and required considering an older age category | Borderline age should have favored Byes under the grid rules | Eight-month gap to birthday is not borderline; age not near a category change | Not border-line; eight months was too distant to trigger older-age consideration. |
| Whether, even if light work were not permissible, grid rules would still yield not disabled | Alternative grid application could result in disability | Plaintiff would still be not disabled under 201.19 | Even with higher age or light-work limitations, not disabled under grid rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Sullivan, 878 F.2d 1108 (8th Cir. 1989) (addressed mental retardation issues when evidence is sparse)
- Dozier v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 274 (8th Cir. 1985) (reversed/remanded for lack of evidence and need for consultative exam)
- Gasaway v. Apfel, 187 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 1999) (remand for insufficient record when substantial contrary evidence exists)
- Snead v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must fairly develop the evidentiary record)
- Phillips v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (gives context on borderline-age considerations)
- Lockwood v. Commissioner, 616 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010) (regulation allows consideration of older-age category; not mandatory)
- Bowie v. Commissioner, 539 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2008) (borderline age categorization not per se required in every case)
- Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2000) (past work and cognitive impairment considerations support non-disability findings)
- Miles v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2004) (considers cognitive abilities in evaluating non-exertional impairments)