Wilburn v. Astrue
626 F.3d 999
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Wilburn applied for SSI benefits July 2, 2002; SSA denied.
- Wilburn reapplied in 2003; SSA again denied.
- Hearing held March 21, 2006 before ALJ James Stubbs; later supplemental hearing scheduled.
- ALJ Stubbs was replaced by ALJ George M. Bock for the supplemental hearing; Wilburn contends lack of notice.
- ALJ Bock held Wilburn could perform unskilled sedentary work and was not disabled; Appeals Council denied review.
- District court affirmed SSA denial; Wilburn appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process notice for ALJ substitution | Wilburn argues inadequate notice of substitution violated due process. | SSA regulations do not require advance notice of ALJ substitution. | No due process violation; substitution did not deprive Wilburn of a full and fair hearing. |
| Credibility and evidence against Wilburn's testimony | ALJ relied on improper credibility determinations to discredit Wilburn and her witnesses. | Record supports ALJ's credibility assessments and RFC determination. | De novo review affirmed; ALJ’s credibility findings upheld. |
| Hypothetical to vocational expert | Improper or incomplete hypothetical questions affected VE testimony. | Hypothetical appropriately reflected RFC and job opportunities. | Hypothetical deemed proper; VE testimony supported RFC finding. |
| RFC and disability determination | RFC to perform certain work insufficiently supported by record evidence. | Medical record inconsistencies and other evidence support RFC. | RFC supported; denial of benefits affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798 (8th Cir.2008) (due process and non-adversarial hearing framework)
- Gamble-Skogmo, Inc. v. FTC, 211 F.2d 106 (8th Cir.1954) (change of personnel during hearing not fatal to order)
- Twin City Milk Producers Ass'n v. McNutt, 122 F.2d 564 (8th Cir.1941) (policy on personnel changes during agency proceedings)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1981) (due process and hearing requirements for social security)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice sufficiency standard under due process)
- Cupples Co. Mfrs. v. N.L.R.B., 103 F.2d 953 (8th Cir.1939) (presumption of regularity in official acts)
- United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (1926) (presumption of regularity applied to official duties)