Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Watson’s father, Hickle, worked for the Department of Energy, 1954 to 1962. Hickle died of Hodgkin’s disease in 1964. Congress enacted the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in 2000 to compensate for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances while working for the Department of Energy. Covered employees or eligible survivors may receive compensation in a lump sum payment; under specific circumstances, a covered employee’s child is also eligible, 42 U.S.C. 7385s-3(d)(2). When her father died, Watson was 19 years old, not a full-time student; she lived with her parents, worked as a waitress, relied on her parents for support, and was listed as a dependent on their income tax returns. She sought survivor benefits in 2002 and received a lump-sum payment of $150,000. She later claimed further compensation as a “covered child,” under a different section of the Act, arguing that she was “incapable of self-support” at the time of Hickle’s death. The Department of Labor denied her claim. Before the district court, Watson challenged the interpretation of “incapable of self-support,” claiming that the Department impermissibly required a showing of physical or mental incapability. The district court denied her motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Watson v. Solis" on Justia Law

Banks worked as a coal miner for 17 years and smoked about one pack of cigarettes per day for 38 years. His employment ended in 1991. After two unsuccessful attempts, in 2003, Banks filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, which provides benefits to coal miners who become disabled due to pneumoconiosis, 30 U.S.C. 901. An ALJ found that Banks had shown a change in his condition and that he suffered from legal pneumoconiosis which substantially contributed to his total disability. Banks was awarded benefits and the Benefits Review Board affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, adopting the regulatory interpretation urged by the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. The ALJ relied on reasoned medical opinions. View "Cumberland River Coal Co. v. Banks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration denied Hill's application. An ALJ also denied Plaintiff's application, and the appeals council denied Plaintiff's request for review. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security and affirmed the ALJ's decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the ALJ failed to consider evidence favorable to Plaintiff and posed an improper hypothetical question to the vocational expert; and (2) therefore, substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. View "Hill v. Astrue " on Justia Law

Perks applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. An ALJ denied Perks's application. On appeal to the appeals council, Perks submitted additional evidence. The appeals council noted the receipt of the additional evidence but denied further review of Perks's claim. The district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Perks was not disabled; and (2) the additional evidence submitted to the appeals council did not undermine the ALJ's determination, as the ALJ would not have reached a different result with the additional evidence and the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. View "Perks v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Shideler suffers osteogenesis imperfecta, “brittle bone disease.” In 2006, at age 48, he applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. 423(d), alleging an onset date of 1995. His date last insured was 2000. The ALJ found that despite Shideler’s limitations, there were a sufficient number of jobs in the regional economy available to a person with his restrictions, and denied his application. The Appeals Council denied review. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record supported the vocational expert’s testimony concerning available jobs as a clerk, assuming certain restrictions: never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and only occasionally climb ramps or stairs; never crouch, kneel or crawl; never perform overhead reaching; avoid exposure to extreme heat and cold; and perform work that includes occasional, but not frequent, use of fingers. Despite his testimony that he had broken at least 55 bones over the course of his life, the record showed that Shideler had only four surgeries and made a full recovery. The record contained no evidence that Shideler visited any doctors between May 2000 and December 2006. View "Shideler v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Brault applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in 2007, claiming that he became disabled in 2006 because of nerve damage in his left arm and a cervical spine injury he sustained in a motor-vehicle accident. After his application was denied initially and on reconsideration, he requested an administrative hearing. Brault’s counsel asserted a Daubert-like objection to the vocational expert’s testimony, contending it was unreliable. The ALJ never directly responded to the objections, but issued a ruling which relied on the VE’s testimony, agreed that positions existed in the eight DOT positions the VE had identified at the numbers the VE had given, and denied Brault’s application for benefits. The district court affirmed the denial. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge was not required to state expressly his reasons for accepting a vocational expert’s challenged testimony.View "Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law

Heinzelman, born in 1971, received a flu vaccine in 2003, and within 30 days, was hospitalized for Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. She was previously employed full-time as a hairstylist earning $49,888 per year. Due to her injury, Heinzelman will never be able to work again and is eligible to receive SSDI benefits of approximately $20,000 per year. In 2007, she sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to 300aa-34. A special master rejected the government’s argument that her eligibility for SSDI benefits should be considered in determining compensation under the Vaccine Act, finding that SSDI is not a "federal . . . health benefits program" within the meaning of section 300aa-15(g), and awarded $1,133,046.08, plus an annuity to cover future medical expenses. According to the government, Heinzelman's lost earnings award would have been roughly $316,000 less had the special master taken her anticipated SSDI benefits into account. The Claims Court and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Heinzelman v. Sec'y Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa, for injuries to their children allegedly caused by the Diptheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis vaccine. The children suffer a seizure disorder, known as Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy. The same special master presided over both cases and determined that plaintiffs failed to show entitlement to compensation because evidence showed that a gene mutation present in both children was the sole cause of their injuries. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting considerable evidentiary support for the conclusion. View "Stone v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Petitioner served in the Army for about 30 months, 1981-1983 and suffered injury to her knees and wrist. The VA regional office assigned a 10 percent rating to her left wrist with an effective date of 1986. In 1987, her right arm was injured as a result of medical care she received from the VA. In 1990, her injury to right knee and shoulder were each rated at 20 percent and her left knee at 30 percent. In 1996, she was unable to continue working as a bookkeeper and brought a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability. The regional office rated her service-connected disabilities at 70 percent, but denied a total rating based on unemployability under 38 C.F.R. 4.16(a). The regional office and Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected her 2004 application for review. The Secretary conceded that the regional office committed error by incorrectly computing petitioner’s rating. The Veterans Court found no “clear and unmistakeable error” and that the error was harmless because the RO had made an unemployability determination that satisfied the requirements for a 4.16(a) analysis. The Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there was no issue of the interpretation of 4.16(a)View "Githens-Bellas v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

The veteran served in Vietnam in the 1960s. He was honorably discharged and received service connection compensation for arthritis and hearing loss. In 1993, he had a malignant melanoma surgically removed; it continued to spread and he died in 1994. The surviving widow filed an Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation alleging that her husband’s death was service connected due to exposure to Agent Orange and extensive sunlight while serving in Vietnam. The Regional Office denied the claim. In 2004, she filed the current claim and submitted an internet article discussing an Air Force study that found an elevated risk of melanoma in veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange. The Board reopened and remanded the claim. On remand, a VA medical examiner determined that it was "at least as likely as not" that the melanoma was causally related to active duty service. The RO again denied the claim.. The Board affirmed. The Veterans Court vacated and remanded. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no final decision.View "Ebel v. Shinseki" on Justia Law