Yancey v. Apfel

August Term, 1997 Argued: November 7, 1997 Appeal from a judgment and order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, C.J.) affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 3 that plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, and denying plaintiff's motion for rehearing, the district court having determined that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Administrative Law Judge (1) did not abuse his discretion by denying plaintiff's request to subpoena her treating physician to testify and (2) did not err in failing to refer plaintiff for either a psychiatric or psychological evaluation. Plaintiff Burnette Yancey appeals from a judgment and order entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, C.J.). The order and judgment adopted the magistrate Judge's recommended ruling affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Yancey was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., as amended. The district court found that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (""ALJ"") was supported by substantial evidence and that (1) the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in refusing to subpoena Yancey's treating physician to testify at the administrative hearing and (2) the ALJ did not err in failing to refer Yancey for either a psychiatric or psychological evaluation.