Matthew Sipp v. Nancy Berryhill
699 F. App'x 576
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Matthew Sipp, with severe vision impairment, previously received disability benefits after a 1996 ALJ decision based on 20/400 uncorrected vision and intolerance of corrective lenses; benefits were discontinued in 2005.
- Sipp applied for disability insurance in December 2005 (denied) and filed a new SSI application on January 13, 2014 alleging vision-related disability.
- A 2014 ALJ denied the 2014 application, relying on state-agency examiners who found substantial improvement and ability to perform unskilled work at all exertional levels; denial covered Jan 13, 2014 to Jan 29, 2015.
- Sipp argued to the district court that (1) the 2005 termination was unlawful because he never received written notice and (2) he was prejudiced at the 2014 hearing because he did not receive an encrypted CD of the administrative record before the hearing.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner, holding Sipp failed to timely appeal the 2005 termination (60-day rule) and that the 2014 ALJ’s findings were supported by uncontradicted medical evidence; any CD delay caused no prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Sipp’s attempts to treat the 2014 filing as an appeal/reopening of the 2005 termination and finding the ALJ adequately explained her decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sipp’s 2014 application constituted an appeal/reopening of the 2005 termination | Sipp: 2014 filing should be construed as an appeal/reopening of the 2005 termination because benefits were unlawfully discontinued without notice | Commissioner: Sipp needed to timely file an appeal/request for reconsideration within 60 days or seek extension; a new application is not an appeal | Held: Sipp’s 2014 application was a new claim; he failed to comply with 60-day appeal rule, so cannot challenge 2005 termination on this appeal |
| Whether failure to receive written notice in 2005 excused the 60-day filing requirement | Sipp: Lack of written notice made 2005 termination unlawful and justifies late challenge | Commissioner: No evidence Sipp could not have discovered termination earlier; filing new application and cessation of payments put him on notice | Held: Court rejects tolling; Sipp should have been aware and cannot circumvent the statutory 60-day limit |
| Adequacy of the ALJ’s consideration of the record and reasoning in 2014 denial | Sipp: ALJ ignored prior favorable 1996 decision and other unspecified statements/evidence | Commissioner: ALJ need not discuss every item; she built a logical bridge and considered relevant medical opinions and symptoms | Held: ALJ adequately considered evidence and provided sufficient reasoning under Seventh Circuit standards |
| Whether procedural prejudice arose from not receiving encrypted CD before hearing | Sipp: Not receiving CD impeded preparation and briefing | Commissioner: No prejudice shown; Sipp points to no missing or unknown material in the record | Held: No prejudice; failure to receive CD did not affect substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. Berryhill, 853 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2017) (timely filing and reopening procedures for Social Security decisions)
- Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ not required to address every piece of evidence but must build a "logical bridge" from evidence to conclusion)