New York Court Affirms Rejection of Propane Driver Disability Claim

The job of a propane delivery driver is not an easy one, and sometimes it can present hazards. In the event of a serious on-the-job injury, there are multiple potential remedies for the injured employee, not the least of which is worker’s compensation benefits under applicable state law. But an additional possible remedy is a claim for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits under federal law. Such claims are rigorously examined and are not always granted. 

A good example is found in the March 9 decision of a federal court in Islip, New York, denying the disability claim of a propane delivery driver injured on the job. The case is Ancken v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. 

Detached Nozzle 

The driver in this case, Paul von Ancken, was making a delivery to a customer tank that served a swimming pool heater. As the tank was being filled, the nozzle somehow became detached from the delivery hose. The court opinion provides no details as to how this happened, but in any event, the result was a very large release of propane into the area. The propane vapor ignited and the driver was injured, sustaining burn injuries to multiple parts of his body. He also developed anxiety after the incident, experiencing panic attacks triggered by memories of the event. 

Von Ancken filed a claim for SSDI benefits. He asserted he was completely disabled and pointed to his burn injuries, also claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression. These injuries, he said, rendered him unable to engage in any substantial gainful employment. The claim was denied, and von Ancken exercised his right to a hearing before an administrative law judge. 

Severe Impairment? 

The central question in the administrative hearing was whether von Ancken had a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The statute says that to qualify as a disability, the impairment must be “of such severity that the claimant is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” The regulations that implement the statute provide a list (called Appendix 1) of impairments that will automatically qualify as a disability, if supported by medical evidence. Severe burns are on the list, but PTSD, anxiety and depression are not. If the claimant does not have a listed impairment, they can still qualify for disability if they can show that they do not have “residual capacity” to perform their past work. They will then qualify for disability unless the government can show there is other work they can perform. 

So it was in this context that an administrative law judge considered von Ancken’s disability claim. First, the administrative judge concluded that von Ancken’s impairments were not on the Appendix 1 list. (Apparently the judge believed the burns the driver sustained in the incident were not sufficiently severe.) He then considered evidence on two issues: (1) Could the driver perform his past work as a propane delivery driver, and (2) If not, could he perform other work at jobs available in the economy? Evidence considered included testimony from treating physicians and other consultants presented by the claimant, as well as “independent” consultants who serve on an approved panel and are paid by the government. 

Cherry Picking? 

After considering the evidence, the administrative judge concluded that the claimant could not return to his job as a propane delivery driver. However, the government was able to present evidence showing the driver could perform other types of work, such as “office helper, laundry aide and quality checker.” Based on this evidence, the administrative judge concluded the claimant was not disabled, and his claim was denied. The delivery driver appealed to federal court, which considered whether there was “substantial evidence” to support the administrative judge’s ruling. 

Von Ancken had a right to appeal this decision to federal court, which he did. On appeal, he raised two points. First, he said the administrative judge failed to properly consider the opinion of his treating psychiatrist, in effect “cherry picking” those opinions that were adverse to von Ancken. Second, he argued the administrative judge failed to consider the opinion of another consulting psychiatrist, who said that von Ancken could only work part time. 

Mixed Bag 

Dr. Burke, the psychiatrist who actually treated von Ancken, had submitted a report that was a mixed bag of conclusions. In some areas, such as “ability to relate to others,” he concluded that von Ancken had only moderate limitations. However, in others, such as “ability to sustain a routine with special supervision” and “ability to respond to customary work pressures,” he concluded that the limitations were “marked” or “extreme.” These latter opinions, in the court’s view, were “not adequately supported in Dr. Burke’s treatment notes and were inconsistent with other evidence in the record.” The court therefore found that the administrative judge properly evaluated the Burke report. 

The other consulting psychiatrist’s opinion that von Ancken could work only part time were viewed by the administrative judge as “unpersuasive because they were conclusory and inherently neither valuable nor persuasive.” The court found that the administrative judge therefore had “complied with applicable regulations and appropriately evaluated” his opinions and overall conclusions. 

Since the court found that von Ancken had produced no evidence of severe impairment, it therefore concluded the administrative judge’s denial of von Ancken’s claim was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence in the record. It affirmed the denial of the claim for disability