Martise v. Astrue, No. 10-2059 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseClaimant appealed the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance. Appellant raised several issues of error on appeal. The court held that a certain physician's post-hearing letter did not contain any additional information and was not relied upon in the decision making process, and its receipt did not violate claimant's due process rights; that the ALJ did not err in finding claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform certain kinds of low-stress work; that there was no error in the decision not to order a consultative examination regarding claimant's mental impairments; and that a hypothetical question posed to the Vocation Expert adequately addressed impairments supported by the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment where substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's decision.
Court Description: Civil case - Social Security. Physician's post-hearing letter did not contain any additional information and was not relied upon in the decision making process, and its receipt did not violate claimant's due process rights; ALJ did not err in finding claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform certain kinds of low-stress work; no error in decision not to order a consultative examination regarding claimant's mental impairments; hypothetical question posed to the Vocational Expert adequately addressed impairments supported by the record.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.