Husband v. Astrue

No. 11-4723 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2012) (summary order) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · November 20, 2012 · No. 11-4723

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District of Vermont’s judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Bryan William Husband’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court concluded that Husband’s arguments were without merit and adopted the district court’s reasoning, including the treatment of his waived obesity argument.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; John M. Walker, Jr.; Richard C. Wesley; Peter W. Hall
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
November 20, 2012
Docket number
11-4723
Procedural posture
Bryan William Husband appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income and denying his motion to reverse the Commissioner's decision.
Standard of review
The Second Circuit reviewed the administrative record de novo to determine whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard.
Precedential value
unpublished, nonprecedential summary order
Parties
Bryan William Husband v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, Michael J. Astrue
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawstandard of reviewpreservation of errorappellate procedure

Practice areas

Social Security disability benefitsadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's denial of Husband's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
  2. Whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard in evaluating Husband's disability claims.
  3. Whether Husband's obesity argument was preserved for judicial review after he failed to raise it in his objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

Holdings

  1. The Commissioner's denial of Husband's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was supported by substantial evidence and was reached under the correct legal standard.
  2. Husband waived further judicial review of his obesity argument by failing to raise it in his objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the panel declined to review the claim because the waiver did not result in manifest injustice.

Key quotations

Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (at 2)

Factual background

Husband applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Commissioner denied the applications, and the district court affirmed that decision. On appeal, Husband challenged the denial, including an argument concerning obesity, but the Second Circuit stated that all of his arguments lacked merit and affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

Procedural history

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation dated August 5, 2011, recommending affirmance of the Commissioner's decision. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and entered judgment affirming the Commissioner. Husband appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed by summary order without oral argument.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…