John E. Peet v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 16-4040 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. The ALJ did not err in limiting the scope of proceedings to the period within the scope of the remand order; the ALJ did not err in proceeding with the hearing even though claimant was unrepresented as claimant had several notices of his right to have counsel and had been given a list of organizations to contact for legal assistance.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4040 ___________________________ John E. Peet lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: October 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. John E. Peet appeals the order of the district court1 affirming a partially favorable determination on his application for supplemental security income. Peet’s 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. pro se brief raises several arguments beyond the scope of this court’s review of the December 18, 2014 decision before it, including claims that relate to prior disability proceedings. As to those claims that arguably relate to the appealed decision, this court concludes that (1) the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly limited his consideration to the period within the scope of a remand order of the Appeals Council, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1477 (upon remand from Appeals Council, ALJ shall take any action ordered by Appeals Council, and may take any additional action that is not inconsistent with remand order); and (2) the ALJ did not err in proceeding with Peet’s hearing despite his unrepresented status, as the record shows that Peet had been provided several notices of his right to be accompanied by representation, together with lists of organizations to contact for information regarding attorneys, see 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(D) (Commissioner shall notify claimant in writing, together with notice of adverse determination, of options for obtaining attorney representatives, and shall advise of availability of legal service organizations providing free legal services); Wingert v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 296, 298 (8th Cir. 1990) (concluding claimant was advised of right to counsel through Social Security Administration’s notice of his hearing, which explained his right to counsel, and claimant’s response to notice). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
