The Krause Chronicles: Honoring the career of Senior District Judge Robert Pratt (Copy)
June 27, 2024
Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director
As I mentioned in last month’s piece, Senator Harkin’s friend, the Honorable Robert W. Pratt, warrants his own story. So here goes.
Not long after NOSSCR was founded in 1979, a young Iowa attorney named Bob Pratt joined. And, as they say, the rest is history.
Bob had worked for Polk County Legal Aid for several years with, among others, future U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. After entering private practice, Bob worked in several firms in Des Moines before establishing his own firm. Over the years, he developed a widely respected practice that focused on Social Security Disability and Workers Comp claims. Bob often said that he “is the only lawyer to have left legal aid and gotten poorer clients.”
Bob Pratt had an impressive record at the Eighth Circuit in the 1980s and into the 1990s. He appealed about two dozen cases, winning the great majority and shaping Social Security Disability law. He won some of the earliest cases regarding the application of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (“the grids”). See, e.g., Talbott v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 511 (8th Cir. 1987); Fazio v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. 1985); Pettijohn v. Heckler, 759 F.2d 669 (8th Cir. 1985). Bob also won some of the early cases on the shifting burden of proof at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. See, e.g., Lewis v. Heckler, 808 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1987); Kirksey v. Heckler, 808 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1987). Of note, he won an early case for a claimant with a somatoform disorder, now known as somatic symptom disorder. Easter v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1128, 1130 (8th Cir. 1989)
One of Bob’s biggest cases was Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195 (8th Cir. 1987). In Gavin, the Eighth Circuit noted:
There is a notable difference between “substantial evidence” and “substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” “Substantial evidence” is merely such “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” . . . “Substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” however, requires a more scrutinizing analysis. . . . In the review of an administrative decision, “[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.” . . . Thus, the court must also take into consideration the weight of the evidence in the record and apply a balancing test to evidence which is contradictory. . . . It follows that the only way a reviewing court can determine if the entire record was taken into consideration is for the district court to evaluate in detail the evidence it used in making its decision and how any contradictory evidence balances out.
Gavin v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1195, 1199 (8th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). According to WestLaw, this paragraph in Gavin has been cited 635 times.
But that’s not all. In 1997, President Bill Clinton appointed Bob Pratt to be a District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Sen. Tom Harkin, the Judge’s longtime friend and co-worker at Legal Aid, recommended him for the position. While Judge Pratt wrote many memorable district court decisions, two decisions written when sitting by designation on the Eighth Circuit are noteworthy.
In Wilcutts v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1998), Judge Pratt remanded the claim to determine whether the claimant was literate. Judge Pratt noted the WAIS-R was not a “pencil and paper” test; the test administrator reads the test to the test taker.
In the second case, the Court held that the opinions of non-treating, non-examining physicians ordinarily do not constitute “substantial evidence” to support an ALJ’s decision. Judge Pratt wrote:
In the case at bar, there is no medical evidence about how Nevland’s impairments affect his ability to function now. The ALJ relied on the opinions of non-treating, non-examining physicians who reviewed the reports of the treating physicians to form an opinion of Nevland’s RFC. In our opinion, this does not satisfy the ALJ’s duty to fully and fairly develop the record. The opinions of doctors who have not examined the claimant ordinarily do not constitute substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Jenkins v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 1999).
Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2000). WestLaw indicates this paragraph has been cited 200 times.
Although not a Social Security case, one of Judge Pratt’s most famous cases involved a criminal matter. Brian Gall plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy and was sentenced to 36 months of probation. The government appealed, challenging the sentence as an unjustified downward adjustment to the sentencing guidelines. The Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing. The defendant petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court sided with Judge Pratt, finding he committed no significant procedural error and the decision to impose probation was not an abuse of discretion. In that case, the defendant had voluntarily withdrawn from a conspiracy to distribute “ecstasy” to live a law-abiding life years before he was charged with any misconduct. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007).
In 2012, Judge Pratt assumed Senior status. He continued to hear cases, especially Social Security cases. Judge Pratt assumed status as an inactive Senior Judge on September 1, 2023. Throughout his career, Judge Pratt has been supported by his wife, Rosemary, and longtime assistant, Mike Messina. See Messina v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 341 N.W.2d 52, 54 (Iowa 1983).
We wish Judge Pratt all the best in retirement and thank him for his contributions to NOSSCR, to Social Security Disability law, and to the law in general.
For more information on the life and career of Judge Pratt:
Bleeding Heartland, Judge Robert Pratt legacy thread (Nov 14 2012)
