Allen Nichols v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services, 930 F.2d 34, 10th Cir. (1991)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsAllen Nichols v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services, 930 F.2d 34, 10th Cir. (1991)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs930 F.
2d 34
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished
opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value
and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the
doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral
estoppel.
Allen NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human
Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 90-1025.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 1991.
Before STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit
Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Secretary's
decision to terminate supplemental security income (SSI) benefits effective
November, 1986. We affirm.
On October 2, 1986, the Social Security Administration sent plaintiff notice
that he was not eligible for SSI payments starting November, 1986, because his
monthly income was too high. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of this
decision was denied. After holding a hearing, the administrative law judge
(ALJ) determined plaintiff's unearned income in the form of disability benefits
was and is in excess of the amount allowable for eligibility for SSI benefits. On
appeal, the district court appointed counsel for plaintiff and remanded to the
Secretary for a new hearing.
4
The ALJ held a second hearing and again determined that plaintiff's unearned
income made him ineligible for SSI benefits. The Appeals Council adopted the
ALJ's findings and conclusions. Thereafter, plaintiff's counsel filed a status
report in the district court indicating there was no further basis for appeal of the
termination of plaintiff's benefits. The district court entered an order affirming
the Secretary.
This court upholds the Secretary's decision and findings if they are supported
by substantial evidence. Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir.1988).
Substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Also,
this court considers whether the Secretary applied the correct legal standards in
making his determination. Bernal, 851 F.2d at 299. Failure to apply the correct
legal standards or to provide this court with a sufficient basis to determine if the
appropriate legal principles have been followed are grounds for reversal. Byron
v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 1232, 1235 (10th Cir.1984).
After examining the briefs, record on appeal and relevant legal authority, we
conclude, for the reasons stated by the ALJ in his recommended decision of
April 26, 1988, that there is substantial evidence that plaintiff's unearned
income exceeded the permissible amount, thereby precluding him from
eligibility for SSI.
SSI, which is based on need, provides a minimum level of income to disabled
persons. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382(a)(1), (c)(1); Paxton v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 856 F.2d 1352, 1353 (9th Cir.1988); Dion v. Secretary of Health
& Human Servs., 823 F.2d 669, 670 (1st Cir.1987); Lyon v. Bowen, 802 F.2d
794, 796 (5th Cir.1986). Eligibility for SSI is determined by the amount of a
claimant's income, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1381a; 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.202, including
unearned income such as disability benefits, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382a(a)(2)(B); 20
C.F.R. Sec. 416.1121(a).
In 1986, claimants were eligible to receive SSI benefits only if their income did
not exceed $4,032 per year or $336 per month. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382(a)(1)(A);
20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.410. Plaintiff had unearned income, in the form of disability
benefits, of $391 per month in 1986. Plaintiff's countable unearned income, the
amount which exceeded the $20 per month unearned income exclusion, 20
C.F.R. Sec. 416.1124, was $371 per month. In years after 1986, the allowable
unearned income for SSI increased, as did plaintiff's unearned income. At all
times, his unearned income exceeded the permitted amount. Thus, there is
substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination that plaintiff's
unearned income from 1986 on exceeded the permissible amount, thereby
precluding him from eligibility for SSI.
9
Plaintiff argues on appeal that the Secretary failed to comply with social
security law and that he was denied due process during the ALJ hearings. We
conclude these arguments are without merit.
10
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is
AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's motions for contempt orders, for clarification, and
regarding oral argument are DENIED.
11
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 doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3
