Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5 Soc - Sec.rep - Ser. 96, Unempl - Ins.rep. CCH 15,303 Jesse Robinson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 733 F.2d 255, 2d Cir. (1984)
5 Soc - Sec.rep - Ser. 96, Unempl - Ins.rep. CCH 15,303 Jesse Robinson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 733 F.2d 255, 2d Cir. (1984)
2d 255
This is an appeal from the Eastern District of New York, Thomas C. Platt,
Judge, affirming a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
("Secretary") terminating Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security
Income ("SSI") benefits based on a determination that appellant, Jesse
Robinson, ceased to be disabled for purposes of eligibility under the Social
Security Act as of January 1982.
Robinson was born in Florence, South Carolina on April 3, 1935. He has been
employed as a power press operator, a messenger and a truck helper but has not
worked since 1972. In 1973, Robinson was found to be disabled under the New
York State Plan for Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled. Robinson
was converted to the SSI program when it began in 1974. In September 1974,
he filed for disability insurance. He was found disabled due to arthritis,
myocardial infarction, and cirrhosis of the liver. He began receiving benefits
retroactive to January 1972, and continued to receive them through March
1982.
3
and bend. He also testified that he suffers from chest pain, dizziness and
fatigue, takes nitroglycerine capsules, Motrin, Lasiz, Dalmane and Valium and
that he was hospitalized twice for high blood pressure and hemorrhages.
7
In a decision dated April 30, 1982, the ALJ found that Robinson did not have a
medically severe impairment. The ALJ's decision included the findings that (1)
Robinson suffers from "arthritis, essential hypertension under control, mild
anxiety and depression, slight cardiac enlargement and mild hypertrophic
spondylosis," (2) Robinson's condition, based on the medical evidence and his
demeanor, is not disabling, and (3) Robinson failed to prove that on or after
January 1982 he was suffering from a severe impairment. The ALJ found that
because the appellant does not suffer from a severe impairment, he is not under
a disability and is therefore capable of engaging in substantial gainful work.
10
Robinson raises three issues on appeal. First, he urges the court to adopt a
position that would require the Secretary, in a cessation of benefits situation, to
show a material improvement in the claimant's condition. Second, Robinson
argues that he was not afforded a fair hearing because the ALJ failed to develop
the record and adequately inform him of his right to counsel. Third, he asserts
that the ALJ erred in ending her inquiry once she found that he did not suffer
from a severe impairment.
11
As we agree with Robinson's second argument that he was not accorded a fair
hearing, we find it unnecessary to consider his first and third arguments.
12
A court reviewing a Secretary's decision "must be satisfied that the claimant has
had 'a full hearing under the Secretary's regulations and in accordance with the
beneficient purposes of the Act.' " See Hankerson v. Harris, 636 F.2d 893, 895
(2d Cir.1980) (quoting Gold v. Secretary of HEW, 463 F.2d 38, 43 (2d
Cir.1972)). The claimant is entitled to be represented by counsel at the hearing
and the ALJ must ensure that the claimant is aware of this right. See Cutler v.
Weinberger, 516 F.2d 1282, 1286 (2d Cir.1975).
13
14
The record is replete with instances where the claimant referred to missing
documents and the ALJ failed to follow up the claimant's inquiries. For
example, after agreeing to the admission into evidence of the fourteen
documents contained in the Disability Unit file, the claimant was asked if he
had any documents that he would like to submit. Robinson stated that he "had
an X-ray and sent it in" but that he did not know if it was before the ALJ. The
ALJ indicated that she did not have it but made no further inquiry. Further, at
the close of the thirty-minute hearing, the claimant stated that there was a letter
referring to arthritis and that he did not know why it was not before the ALJ.
Earlier in the hearing Robinson referred to the letter and stated "[w]ell ma'am, I
got this arthritis in the lower spine. That's when I sent the letter. I thought you
would have it here. Because that was in my record."
15
In sum, the failure of the ALJ to develop the record fully and to afford
Robinson, who was unrepresented by counsel, an adequate opportunity to do
so, denied Robinson a fair hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the
district court with directions to remand the case to the Secretary for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Thus, Robinson is to be reinstated as
eligible for benefits retroactive to the date of termination, and awarded
reasonable attorney's fees.