Martise v. Astrue
641 F.3d 909
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Martise applied for disability insurance benefits alleging disability since December 31, 2003; district court upheld SSA denial.
- At the hearing, Martise testified about low reading level, prior mail clerk work, chronic arm and back pain, migraines, asthma, and daily functioning.
- Medical records show long-term treatment by Dr. Aisenstat and Dr. Berland, including a May 2007 MSS with GAF scores 40–55 and migraines responsive to medication.
- The ALJ found depression and anxiety as severe impairments, determined Martise could perform simple, non-public, low-stress work, and credited a VE with possible jobs; he noted sending a post-hearing letter to Dr. Berland but did not rely on it to deny benefits.
- The ALJ’s decision was reviewed de novo on appeal, focusing on due process, RFC, mental impairment development, and VE hypotheticals; the court upheld the ALJ’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process violation from withholding the post-hearing letter | Martise needed to respond to the letter before the decision | No prejudice; post-hearing letter did not supply new evidence | No due process violation |
| RFC determination accuracy | ALJ failed to include migraine-related and combined-impairment limitations; gave insufficient weight to Berland | ALJ properly weighed evidence and relied on substantial record | RFC supported by substantial evidence |
| Development of mental impairment record | ALJ should have ordered additional consultative examination | Record developed adequately; ALJ not obliged to rely on one opinion | No reversible error for lack of consultative exam |
| Hypothetical to VE | Hypothetical did not account for headaches and Berland’s limits | Hypothetical included all supported limitations; VE testimony corroborated denial | Hypothetical proper; VE testimony substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurd v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 734 (8th Cir.2010) (post-hearing letter to psychiatrist; no prejudice where evidence insufficient)
- Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922 (8th Cir.2010) (standard for reviewing disability determinations; substantial evidence standard)
- Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89 (8th Cir.1994) (consideration of combined impairments and medical evidence)
- Passmore v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 658 (8th Cir.2008) (due process and hearing rights in evaluating medical evidence)
- Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881 (8th Cir.2006) (hypothetical to VE must reflect substantial record-supported impairments)
- Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.2007) (treating opinions weighed against other credible evidence; need for rationale)