Miller v. Shalala (1994)

By Jaden Militello

Overview

Miller v. Shalala (1994) is a federal case in which James Miller, a thirty-four year old man with a developmental disability, alleged that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, wrongly denied him child’s disability benefits. The primary issue in this case was whether Miller suffered from a disability that began before his twenty-second birthday and rendered him continuously disabled from that date to the date of his application. Miller argued that his impairments arose prior to his twenty-second birthday, and he did not engage in any substantial gainful activities. Conversely, Shalala contended that based on Miller’s employment history, his disability was not sufficiently continuous.

Summary

On August 2, 1990, thirty-four year old James Miller applied for child’s disability benefits based on his developmental disability that occurred during his childhood (Miller v. Shalala). The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, denied his application based on testimony from doctors, Miller’s sister, and his extensive work history. Shalala held that Miller’s disability was not continuous since before his twenty-second birthday because he had engaged in substantial gainful activity. Miller then commenced a civil action against Shalala, and both parties moved for summary judgment (Miller v. Shalala).

The parties agreed that Miller suffered from a developmental disability that caused significant impairment in his ability to process new information. Miller could not be expected to maintain the necessary attention and concentration required for entry level work and as such, he was entitled to disability benefits. Thus, the main issue in this case is whether Miller also qualified for child’s disability benefits (Miller v. Shalala).

A requirement for a claimant to receive child’s disability benefits is that their disability began before they turned twenty-two (Miller v. Shalala). Accordingly, the court focused on whether Miller’s disability existed before he turned twenty-two. Miller completed the twelfth grade while in special education classes, and obtained work through a special education program. He worked as a bagger and a janitor before acquiring a position at Ponderosa Steakhouse as a dishwasher, cook, and janitor. Miller worked at Ponderosa Steakhouse for several years before he was eventually fired after arriving late for work as a result of being arrested for marijuana possession. Miller then worked as a laborer for a soil bagging company and later worked at several fast food restaurants, but he never held steady employment after Ponderosa Steakhouse (Miller v. Shalala). Miller’s sister testified that he experienced challenges with reading, writing, and remembering directions since he was a child. She explained that she handled his checking account as an adult, and had to remind him to perform various daily life activities. Medical records showed that Miller suffered from intellectual challenges during his early childhood, and that his IQ remained the same since he was six years old. Miller was diagnosed with suffering from borderline intellectual functioning as well as a mixed type of developmental disorder that manifested in his reading, writing, and arithmetic skills. The examining doctor concluded that Miller could not at the time of examination nor any time in the future perform any substantial gainful activity. He also expressed the opinion that Miller’s mental state was substantially the same on his twenty-second birthday as it was when he was interviewed eight years later (Miller v. Shalala).

Other treating professionals interviewed Miller and noted that he had never been able to obtain any jobs without help from others (Miller v. Shalala). When examining Miller’s child’s disability benefits application, Shalala believed that the appropriate test was whether Miller suffered from a disability that began before his twenty-second birthday and rendered him continuously disabled from that date to the date of his application. She noted that Miller earned more than three hundred dollars per month during his three year employment at Ponderosa Steakhouse. She concluded that these earnings raised a rebuttable presumption that Miller had engaged in substantial gainful activities during those years, and therefore, his disability was not continuous (Miller v. Shalala). Shalala further noted that Miller’s employment demonstrated that he possessed the ability to maintain regular employment without assistance from others, and that he was not fired for poor performance related to his disability but because of his lateness resulting from his arrest for marijuana possession. Based on these factors, Shalala found that Miller had not been suffering from a continuous disability since before his twenty-second birthday and was not entitled to child’s disability benefits despite his existing disability.

Miller raised two arguments in his motion for summary judgement. First, he argued that his application should have been granted based on the fact that his impairments arose prior to his twenty-second birthday, he was under a disability at the time, and that he is now disabled from those same impairments. Second, Miller claimed that the work he performed at Ponderosa Steakhouse was not truly competitive and thus could not be considered gainful employment (Miller v. Shalala). The court found that other courts have consistently recognized that even if a plaintiff has engaged in what appears to be substantial gainful activities, they can still demonstrate that their disability has been continuous. Here, the court analyzed whether Miller provided substantial evidence that he was continuously disabled since before his twenty-second birthday even though earning over three hundred dollars per month for several years created a rebuttable presumption that he was engaged in substantial gainful activities. When examining the evidence, the court noted that Miller performed substantial duties while working at Ponderosa Steakhouse, and neither he nor anyone else testified that he did not perform this work at a competitive pace, that he was only able to maintain his position because of special accommodations, or that he required a substantial amount of supervision or guidance in order to perform his duties (Miller v. Shalala). Additionally, Miller lost his job due to external factors rather than as a result of experiencing difficulty functioning in that setting. 

The court held that Shalala had correctly denied Miller child’s disability benefits. Based on the record, Miller had worked several jobs prior to his twenty-second birthday, and a reasonable person could conclude that his employment at Ponderosa Steakhouse was substantial gainful employment (Miller v. Shalala). The court stated that nothing more was required to sustain Shalala’s decision that Miller was not under a continuous disability from before his twenty-second birthday to the date of his application. Thus, Miller’s motion for summary judgment was denied and Shalala’s motion was granted (Miller v. Shalala).

Impact

This case helped solidify the “continuous disability” test as an appropriate standard for determining whether a child is entitled to disability benefits (Studicata). This test outlines that the child must have been disabled on or before their twenty-second birthday, and that this disability continues to the date of their application. While employment is seen as presumptive proof that a claimant’s disability is not sufficiently continuous, the court in this case also discussed how a claimant can present facts such as working sporadically, in a non-competitive environment, or during an unsuccessful trial period to overcome this presumption (Gray).

Court Documents

Miller v. Shalala, 859 F. Supp. 297, 298 (S.D. Ohio 1994)

Citations

“Miller v. Shalala,” Studicata, https://studicata.com/case-briefs/case/miller-v-shalala/. Accessed 31 May, 2025.

Gray, Nicole. Miller v. Shalala, Quimbee, https://www.quimbee.com/cases/miller-v-shalala. Accessed 31 May, 2025.