Vivaritas v. Commissioner of Social Security , 264 F. App'x 155 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-12-2008
Vivaritas v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4113
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Vivaritas v. Comm Social Security" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1616.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1616
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-4113
DAWN VIVARITAS,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-04600)
Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, District Judge
Argued December 13, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL, GREENBERG, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 12, 2008)
Abraham S. Alter (argued)
Langton & Alter
2096 St. Georges Avenue
Rahway, NJ 07065
Attorneys for Appellant
Christopher J. Christie
United States Attorney
Som Ramrup (argued)
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Kristina Cohn
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Barbara L. Spivak
Chief Counsel – Region II
Karen Fiszer
Senior Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Attorneys for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this Court on appeal from an order entered in the
District Court on August 11, 2006, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying appellant Dawn Vivaritas’ application for social security
disability benefits. Vivaritas makes four arguments in support of her appeal. First, she
argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to inform her adequately of her
right to counsel and failed to develop the record adequately in light of her lack of counsel.
Second, Vivaritas argues that the ALJ did not predicate her finding that Vivaritas did not
satisfy the requirements of listed impairment 12.05(C) on substantial evidence. Third, she
argues that the ALJ did not base her finding at the fourth step of the five-step sequential
evaluation procedure that Vivaritas retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
2
perform her past relevant work on substantial evidence. Fourth, Vivaritas argues that the
ALJ erred by not relying on a vocational expert at the final step of the five-step sequential
evaluation procedure for determining eligibility for benefits.
For reasons that we will discuss, we agree that the ALJ failed to explain
adequately to Vivaritas her right to counsel and that Vivaritas therefore did not waive that
right knowingly and intelligently. We also agree that the ALJ failed to develop the record
adequately with respect to whether Vivaritas satisfied the requirements for listed
impairment 12.05(C). We therefore will reverse the District Court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of benefits and remand this case to the District Court to remand it
to the Commissioner to develop the record further. Inasmuch as further development of
the record and the ALJ’s decision based on that record may make consideration of steps
four and five of the five-step sequential evaluation procedure unnecessary, we do not
reach Vivaritas’ other challenges to the ALJ’s decision.
On November 5, 2002, Vivaritas filed an application for social security disability
benefits claiming that she became unable to work beginning in October 2002 as a result
of migraines, asthma, and depression. The Commissioner denied her application initially
and on reconsideration. Vivaritas subsequently filed a request for review by an ALJ that
resulted in a hearing on July 15, 2004. The ALJ began the hearing, which Vivaritas
attended without counsel, by informing her that she had the right to counsel and asking
whether she wished to proceed without representation or adjourn the hearing for 30 days
3
in order to find counsel. Vivaritas chose to proceed without representation. During the
hearing, Vivaritas testified to her physical disabilities and to her mental limitations.
Based on Vivaritas’ testimony concerning her mental limitations, the ALJ requested a
consultative examination to evaluate them. In two reports dated October 17, 2004, Dr.
Anthony J. Candela reported on the results of Vivaritas’ examination, describing her
intellectual and psychological condition and documenting her scores on several IQ tests.
On April 21, 2005, the ALJ denied Vivaritas’ application for benefits. Vivaritas
subsequently sought review by the Appeals Council, which concluded that she provided
no grounds for a review of the ALJ’s decision.
On September 22, 2005, Vivaritas filed this action in the District Court challenging
the Commissioner’s denial of her application for benefits. On August 11, 2006, the
District Court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. On September 15, 2006,
Vivaritas filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
The District Court had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the order of the District Court and over the legal aspects of the Commissioner’s decision.
See Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000). Inasmuch as the dispositive issues in
this case are legal, we will decide the case on the basis of that standard of review rather
than on the usual basis of ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence in the record
supporting the Commissioner’s decision. See id.
4
Though a claimant does not have a constitutional right to counsel at a social
security disability hearing, she does have a statutory and regulatory right to counsel at
such a hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 406; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1705. The claimant must be given
notice of the right to counsel and can waive this right only by a knowing and intelligent
waiver.1 See, e.g., Smith v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 826, 828 (11th Cir. 1982). Moreover,
where a claimant is pro se, the ALJ has a duty to help the claimant develop the
administrative record and “must scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of,
and explore for all the relevant facts.” Reefer v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376, 380 (3d Cir.
2003) (internal quotations omitted).
Although an ALJ may deny a pro se claimant benefits, it is appropriate for a
reviewing court to remand a case if there is “a showing of clear prejudice or unfairness at
the administrative hearing.” Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 407 (3d Cir. 1979);
see also Livingston v. Califano, 614 F.2d 342, 345 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[I]f it is clear that the
lack of counsel prejudiced the claimant or that the administrative proceeding was marked
by unfairness due to the lack of counsel, this is sufficient for remand, or reversal.”). A
1
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has stated that “[t]o ensure valid
waivers, ALJs must explain to pro se claimants ‘(1) the manner in which an attorney can
aid in the proceedings, (2) the possibility of free counsel or a contingency arrangement,
and (3) the limitation on attorney fees to 25 percent of past due benefits and required
court approval of the fees.’” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Binion v. Shalala, 13 F.3d 243, 245 (7th Cir. 1994)). Although we have referred
to decisions by other courts of appeals in describing the standards for evaluating social
security appeals, we have not required that ALJs explain each of these listed items that
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case law requires.
5
determination of whether the claimant waived the right to counsel knowingly and
intelligently determines who has the burden of demonstrating whether remand is
appropriate. As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[i]f the ALJ
does not obtain a valid waiver of counsel, the burden is on the Commissioner to show the
ALJ adequately developed the record.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 842 (7th Cir.
2007). “While a claimant represented by counsel is presumed to have made his best case
before the ALJ, no such presumption attaches to an unrepresented claimant.” Id.
“Without the shifting of this burden, no sanction would exist for an ALJ’s inadequate
explanation of a claimant’s rights.” Binion v. Shalala, 13 F.3d 243, 245 (7th Cir. 1994).
In this case, the ALJ began the hearing by acknowledging that Vivaritas did not
have counsel and stating: “You know that you have the right to have a representative, but
you are not required to have one.” App. at 26. The ALJ informed Vivaritas that the
notice of the hearing which Vivaritas had received contained a list of possible
representatives and that she could provide Vivaritas with an additional copy if necessary.
Id. The ALJ then described Vivaritas’ right to counsel in the following exchange:
ALJ: Let me first explain to you what a representative could do for
you. A representative could help you to gather medical
records and other documents in support of your case. A
representative could help you to organize your case and could
help you to present your case before an Administrative Law
Judge. There may be representatives that do not charge any
money. Have you given any thought to getting a
representative?
CLMT: I was – I went to check into legal aide [sic] because I can’t
6
afford [sic] and they say – I think they’re on Summit or
something. I was looking for it, but I couldn’t find it.
ALJ: Okay. Well, let me explain to you what your options are
today. First, let me tell you that it’s perfectly possible to have
a fair hearing either with a representative or without a
representative. It’s purely a personal choice of yours. It – so
you have two choices today. You can either choose to
proceed today with the hearing without a representative or I
could give you an adjournment of 30 days to give you a
chance to get a representative. If you choose to proceed today
and if I notice during the hearing that there are any documents
that are missing from your record that I need, I can take steps
through my office to get those and add them to your file.
Also, if you proceed today and for some reason you are not
happy with the [d]ecision that I make, you would be free to
appeal that [d]ecision and you could get a representative at
that time if you so chose [sic]. So what is your [d]ecision?
Do you want to proceed or do you want to have a chance to
get a representative?
CLMT: Well, I’m going to proceed.
ALJ: You want to proceed today?
CLMT: Yeah.
App. at 26-28.
Ordinarily, the foregoing exchange would be sufficient to establish that a claimant
waiving her right to counsel during an ALJ hearing acted knowingly and intelligently. In
this case, however, Vivaritas later testified at the hearing that she suffered from mental
limitations, although the extent of her limitations was unclear at the time of her testimony.
When the ALJ asked Vivaritas to describe her mental limitations, she testified:
Well, I’m a little slower than other people, but I get – manage to get around.
7
That’s what it is. I don’t – do things the way, you know, other people
would do. I’m a little slow at learning things and it’s always been that way.
That’s why I went to special ed[.], but I went to regular high school because
they had a special program for that.
* * *
At night, I went, so it was like a special thing for the special ed[.] to put
them in regular [sic].
App. at 44. Indeed, Vivaritas’ testimony prompted the ALJ to request a consultative
examination to assess her intellectual and psychological condition. Dr. Candela described
the results of that examination as follows:
[Vivaritas] obtained a Verbal IQ score of 72, which has a range of 68 to 78
Verbal IQ points at the 95th percent confidence level. She also obtained a
Performance IQ score of 67, with a range of 62 to 76 Performance IQ points
at the 95th percent confidence level. These two scores yielded a Full Scale
IQ score of 67 with a range of 64 to 72 Full Scale IQ points at the 95th
percent confidence level. The indication here is that her range of abilities
are within the low borderline range. Clearly Dawn has learning difficulties.
Her scores ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 9, indicating the presence of
scatter. There was also scatter on an intra-test basis. General vocabulary
was limited as well as abstract reasoning.
App. at 205. Although it was an open question during the hearing whether Vivaritas’
mental limitations qualified her for disability benefits, her testimony regarding those
limitations, particularly when the subsequent evaluation by Dr. Candela supported her
testimony, should have given the ALJ concerns as to whether her explanation to Vivaritas
of her right to counsel was sufficient and whether Vivaritas’ waiver of that right was
knowing and intelligent.
In addition to the validity of the waiver of counsel problem, there was a second
8
problem with the ALJ’s handling of the case in that she failed to develop the record
adequately on the question of whether Vivaritas satisfied the requirements for listed
impairment 12.05(C), and whether this failure resulted in clear prejudice to Vivaritas’
disability claim. The ALJ found that Vivaritas did not satisfy listing 12.05(C) because
“[s]he does not have a mental disorder that is severe enough to impose significant work-
related limitations of function that are satisfied by the requirements of medical listing
12.05(C) .” App. at 17.
The Commissioner’s regulations provide the following with respect to listed
impairment 12.05(C):
12.05. Mental retardation: Mental retardation refers to significantly
subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive
functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e., the
evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.
The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the requirements
in A, B, C, or D are satisfied.
* * *
C. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a
physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant
work-related limitation of function . . . .
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05(C). In other words, “[t]o meet the
requirements of § 12.05[(C)] a claimant must i) have a valid verbal, performance or full
scale IQ of 60 through 70, ii) have a physical or other mental impairment imposing
additional and significant work-related limitations of function, and iii) show that the
9
mental retardation was initially manifested during the developmental period (before age
22).” Markle v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 182, 187 (3d Cir. 2003).
Vivaritas satisfied the first and second requirements. With respect to her IQ
scores, Dr. Candela reported:
[Vivaritas] obtained a Verbal IQ score of 72, which has a range of 68 to 78
Verbal IQ points at the 95th percent confidence level. She also obtained a
Performance IQ score of 67, with a range of 62 to 76 Performance IQ points
at the 95th percent confidence level. These two scores yielded a Full Scale
IQ score of 67 with a range of 64 to 72 Full Scale IQ points at the 95th
percent confidence level.
App. at 205. In addition, the ALJ found that Vivaritas’ asthma and migraines were
“severe” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, which describes “severe impairment” as
“any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits your physical
or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c).
The ALJ, however, did not address whether the record supported a finding that the
onset of Vivaritas’ mental impairments occurred before age 22 as specified in impairment
12.05(c). See app. at 15-23. A claimant seeking benefits pursuant to listed impairment
12.05(C) has the burden of providing evidence showing that the claimed impairment
commenced during the developmental period. See Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178,
1186 (3d Cir. 1992). In Markle v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 182, the Commissioner denied
benefits to the claimant based in part on a finding that the claimant did not satisfy the
requirements for listed impairment 12.05(C). We reversed the Commissioner’s denial of
benefits, however, because the ALJ had failed to address whether the claimant’s mental
10
retardation had commenced during the developmental period and we wanted to give the
ALJ the opportunity to further develop the record and address the issue in the first
instance. Id. at 189. We found that the claimant had fulfilled her burden of production
sufficiently to warrant remand because the medical evidence did not suggest that
retardation originated after age 21, that the claimant had educational problems, including
taking special education courses through ninth grade, dropping out in the tenth grade, and
struggling to obtain a GED, and that he had not worked for at least 15 years. Id. We also
observed that “the evidence before the ALJ [was] consistent with a finding that Markle’s
mental condition remained constant from childhood through the present, the only change
being that his physical condition worsened as the years went by,” and that “[t]here is no
evidence of a long work history . . . or of a traumatic event that might have induced
mental retardation at a later stage of life.” Id. at 188-89.
Here, as was true of the claimant in Markle, Vivaritas produced evidence
suggesting that her claimed mental impairment had an onset before she reached the age of
22. During the hearing, Vivaritas testified that she attended special education classes
while in high school and the ALJ acknowledged in her decision that Vivaritas “attended
special education class for many years beginning with grammar school.” App. at 18.
When the ALJ asked Vivaritas to describe her mental limitations in greater detail, she
testified that she was “a little slower than other people” and “a little slow at learning
things,” and that “it’s always been that way.” App. at 44. As for the medical evidence,
11
Dr. Candela’s report does not indicate whether Vivaritas’ intellectual limitations began
during her developmental period. See app. 204-10. During oral argument before us,
Vivaritas’ counsel argued that if he had represented her during the hearing, he would have
requested production of her educational records to see whether her IQ test scores prior to
age 22 satisfied the severity requirements of listing 12.05(C). The ALJ did not request
Vivaritas’ educational records, nor did she seek a contemporary medical opinion
concerning the onset age of Vivaritas’ claimed mental impairments.
For these reasons, we conclude that Vivaritas did not waive her right to counsel
during the ALJ hearing knowingly and intelligently and that she clearly suffered prejudice
as a result of her lack of counsel. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the District
Court order of August 11, 2006, affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits to
Vivaritas and to remand the matter to the District Court to remand the matter to the
Commissioner to develop the record further. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16, 123 S. Ct. 353, 355 (2002). As a practical matter, we expect that Vivaritas, who has
appealed her case with the assistance of highly experienced counsel primarily on the
ground that she was prejudiced as a result of her earlier lack of representation, will have
counsel on remand, in which event the errors that we have described undoubtedly will be
addressed adequately. If Vivaritas decides, however, to proceed without counsel, a
course that we hope she does not follow, the ALJ should explain her right to have counsel
and counsel’s availability in full detail and, if Vivaritas insists on proceeding pro se, the
12
ALJ should develop the record with respect to the question of whether Vivaritas satisfied
the requirements of listed impairment 12.05(C).
The order of August 11, 2006, will be reversed and the matter will be remanded to
the District Court to remand the matter further to the Commissioner for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
13