Mildred Hyde v. Donna Shalala, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5 F.3d 546, 10th Cir. (1993)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsMildred Hyde v. Donna Shalala, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5 F.3d 546, 10th Cir. (1993)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs5 F.
3d 546
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
Mildred HYDE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Donna SHALALA, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 93-6142.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 16, 1993.
Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
LOGAN, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without
oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Mildred Hyde brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) after
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) denied her application
for disability benefits. After her claim was denied initially and upon
reconsideration, she obtained a de novo hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ). The ALJ denied her application and the Appeals Council declined
to review the case, rendering the ALJ's determination the final decision of the
Secretary. The district court affirmed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1291.
The only issue on appeal is whether plaintiff was entitled to quarters of
The only issue on appeal is whether plaintiff was entitled to quarters of
coverage in 1988 for purposes of meeting insured status requirements under 42
U.S.C. Secs. 416(i) and 423. We will reverse the Secretary's decision only if it
is not supported by substantial evidence. Casias v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir.1991).
Plaintiff and her husband married in 1985. Before the marriage she had worked
with him in an established general contracting business. During that period
plaintiff performed considerable work at the business and was compensated.
After the marriage, however, their joint tax returns filed for 1985-1988
reflected plaintiff's husband as a sole proprietor of the business; he also filed a
self-employment tax form and paid social security tax only for himself.
Applt.App. 45-48. Their 1988 income tax form as originally filed listed
plaintiff as a housewife.
In October 1989, plaintiff and her husband filed an amended 1988 tax return
indicating that the income on the Schedule "C" filed with their original return
had been jointly earned and should have been divided between them. That
amended return included a self-employment tax form for plaintiff as well as her
husband. Applt.App. 43-44, 47-48. In November 1989, plaintiff and her
husband both executed Social Security Administration partnership
questionnaires. She indicated on her questionnaire that she was a "helper and
partner." Both forms stated the partnership started on January 1, 1988, contrary
to plaintiff's testimony before the ALJ, Applt.App. 49-52, which had been that
although they had no written partnership agreement the partnership began at
the time of the marriage. Id. at 21. Plaintiff then applied for disability benefits
on November 14, 1989, alleging May 29, 1989, as the onset of her disability.
We have carefully examined the record, including the decision of the ALJ, the
decision of the Administrative Appeals Judge declining review and the
recommendation by the magistrate judge to the district court. We cannot add
significantly to the analysis of the magistrate judge's opinion that was adopted
by the district court. We agree that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's
decision that plaintiff is not eligible for disability insurance benefits because
she lacked the necessary quarters of coverage to obtain insured status.
Consequently, she is not entitled to a determination of disability.
AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrine of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3
