Plaintiff-appellant Charles Cieutat (Cieutat) appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) dismissing Cieutat's suit, which sought to set aside the Secretary's denial of his claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 423(a), 1381a. In his appeal to this Court, Cieutat asserts that the Social Security Appeals Council lacked authority to reopen his case, and, alternatively, if it had the authority, that it improperly failed to treat his 1981 work as a trial work period; that the district court erred in making insured status a prerequisite to his eligibility for SSI; and that the Appeals Council's final decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the Appeals Council had the power to reopen the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision; that it properly treated Cieutat's 1981 work as substantial gainful activity rather than as a trial work period; and that substantial evidence supports its determination that Cieutat was not disabled. Although the district court erred in making insured status a requirement for SSI, we find the district court's error harmless because the Appeals Council applied the proper legal standards in denying Cieutat SSI benefits. Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment upholding the decision of the Appeals Council.

At the time of the Secretary's decision, Cieutat was twenty-six years old and had a ninth grade education. He had worked for periods of varying duration as a stock clerk, framing carpenter, welder's helper, truck driver, and oilfield worker. In addition to the application for benefits that is the subject of this appeal, Cieutat previously had applied on two occasions for Social Security benefits, but both of the earlier applications were denied without appeal. Cieutat filed the present application on October 6, 1982, claiming that he was unable to work due to a back impairment. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied this application initially and upon reconsideration. On July 19, 1983, Cieutat received a de novo hearing before an ALJ. Cieutat appeared in person and was represented by counsel. Cieutat's wife and his mother also appeared before the ALJ.

At the July 1983 hearing before the ALJ, Cieutat alleged the onset of his disability was in September 1977, when at age nineteen he fell at work and injured his back. He testified that he had been in pain since the 1977 injury, that he could sit comfortably only for ten minutes at a time, and that walking exacerbated the pain. Cieutat said that at first the pain was sporadic, but that since 1979 or 1980 it had worsened in intensity and had become constant. He stated that he could not bend to pick up objects on the floor and that he had difficulty opening doors. He said he took medication and used a heating pad and hot soaks daily to relieve the pain. He also said that he had been treated for depression and for an addiction to the painkillers he had taken for a period of time following the 1977 injury. Cieutat's wife and mother corroborated his testimony about his pain, depression, and drug addiction. Based upon this testimony and medical reports from ten physicians, the ALJ found that Cieutat was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. On August 11, 1983, the ALJ issued a decision awarding disability benefits and directing the component of the SSA responsible for SSI benefits to award those if Cieutat otherwise met the SSI eligibility requirements.

Subsequent to the ALJ's decision, the SSA received a Work Activity Report, dated January 23, 1984, and submitted on behalf of Cieutat. The Report stated that Cieutat had worked for six months in 1981 as a "truck driver/electrician" for ATI, Inc. The same month, the SSA received an employer report prepared by ATI, Inc., which verified that for the six-month period between July and December 1981 Cieutat earned approximately $1,000 per month, along with a memorandum from the Office of Disability Operations calling Cieutat's work activity to the SSA's attention.

Based on the receipt of these documents, on November 30, 1984, the Appeals Council on its own initiative reopened the ALJ's decision. On March 27, 1985, the Appeals Council issued a revised decision finding that Cieutat was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Specifically, the Appeals Council determined that Cieutat had a severe back impairment, and that he had suffered from drug abuse, which had been successfully treated, and from a brief depressive condition, but that he did not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in, Appendix 1 of the regulations.1 The Appeals Council also found that Cieutat's testimony regarding his extreme pain was inconsistent with the medical evidence and with his level of activity; that Cieutat could not perform his past relevant work, but that he had the residual functional capacity, which was not significantly affected by nonexertional limitations, for at least sedentary work; and that considering his residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, Cieutat was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to disability insurance or SSI benefits.

After the Appeals Council's decision, Cieutat requested judicial review by timely filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Upon submission of cross-motions for summary judgment, the magistrate issued Findings and Conclusions recommending that Cieutat's motion be granted. The district court on March 25, 1986 rejected this recommendation, entered judgment in favor of the Secretary, and denied Cieutat's motion for summary judgment. Cieutat appeals that decision.

Acting under the authority of the SSA regulations, see 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.987-404.989, 416.1487-416.1489, the Appeals Council on November 30, 1984, reopened the ALJ's August 11, 1983, hearing decision. Cieutat's first argument for reversal is that in so doing, the Appeals Council violated the SSA's own regulations.

In addressing this argument, we first note that our review of an agency's regulations is circumscribed. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A)2; DeSoto General Hosp. v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 182, 184-85 (5th Cir.1985). It is especially so in reviewing regulations promulgated by the Secretary in implementing the Act, since Congress has "conferred on the Secretary exceptionally broad authority to prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the Act," including those involved here. Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U.S. 34, 101 S. Ct. 2633, 2640, 69 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1981); Mercy Hosp. v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1985). Where, as here, the statute expressly entrusts the Secretary with responsibility for implementing a provision of the Act by regulation,3 judicial review is limited to determining whether the regulations exceed the Secretary's statutory authority and whether they are arbitrary or capricious. Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 103 S. Ct. 1952, 1957, 76 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1983); Marcello v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 851 (5th Cir.1986). The parties do not dispute, and we have no doubt, that the SSA regulations in question here were properly promulgated in accordance with the rule-making authority granted to the SSA under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(a) and that they are neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accord Butterworth v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1379, 1384 (11th Cir.1986).

Cieutat contends, however, that the Secretary's interpretation of section 404.988 to permit him to reopen and revise the ALJ's decision in this case is inconsistent with language of the SSA regulations. In cases involving such challenges, longstanding precedent obligates us to give great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own regulations. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 790, 797, 63 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1980); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 792, 801, 13 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1965); Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 65 S. Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L. Ed. 1700 (1945); Baylor Univ. Medical Center v. Heckler, 758 F.2d 1052, 1062 (5th Cir.1985). Given this deference, a party who challenges the agency's interpretation necessarily shoulders a heavy burden. Johnson's Professional Nursing Home v. Weinberger, 490 F.2d 841, 844 (5th Cir.1974). As the reviewing court, we are not free to set aside the Secretary's interpretation simply because we may have interpreted the regulations differently as an original matter. Marcello, 803 F.2d at 855; Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1149 (8th Cir.1984). We must accept the Secretary's interpretation unless that interpretation is plainly inconsistent with the language of the regulations.4 United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 97 S. Ct. 2150, 2155, 53 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1977); Diaz-Soto v. INS, 797 F.2d 262, 263 (5th Cir.1986); see also 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 7:22 (2d ed. 1979).

Accordingly, we must determine whether the Secretary's interpretation of section 404.988 as sustaining the jurisdiction of the Appeals Council to reopen Cieutat's case is plainly inconsistent with the language of the regulations.5 In pertinent part, section 404.988 provides:

"A determination, revised determination, decision, or revised decision may be reopened--

"(a) Within 12 months of the date of the notice of the initial determination, for any reason;

"(b) Within four years of the date of the notice of the initial determination if we find good cause, as defined in Sec. 404.989, to reopen the case; or

"(c) At any time if--[certain here immaterial specified conditions are met]."6

As relevant to this action, section 404.989(a)(1) states that good cause exists if "[n]ew and material evidence is furnished." Since the Appeals Council's reopening of Cieutat's case on November 30, 1984 was more than twelve months after Cieutat had been given notice of the initial determination, which was dated December 1, 1982, the regulations permitted reopening only upon a finding of good cause by the Appeals Council.

Assuming for the moment that the Appeals Council properly determined that good cause existed, nothing in the language of section 404.988 appears on its face inconsistent with the Secretary's reading of the regulation to permit the Appeals Council to reopen Cieutat's case. Cieutat does not contend otherwise. Cieutat argues, however, that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the Secretary's regulations pertaining to the administrative "review" process, see 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.967-404.983, and those pertaining to procedures for "reopening," see id. Secs. 404.982-404.996, when read in their entirety.

The regulatory framework relating to the SSA Disability Benefits Program, see Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 401-433, is contained in Part 4 of the SSA regulations. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1-404.2127 (1986). Subpart J of Part 4 details the admittedly complex administrative procedures for handling disability claims. Id. Secs. 404.900-404.999d. The steps in the administrative process include an initial determination (which is made without a hearing by the SSA or by an appropriate state agency upon receipt of an application for benefits), a reconsideration determination, a hearing before an ALJ, and Appeals Council review. Reconsideration is the first step in the administrative review process available to a claimant who is unsuccessful at the initial determination stage. Id. Sec. 404.907. It consists of a review by either the SSA or the state agency of the claimant's application, along with any new evidence presented by the claimant. Id. Sec. 404.913. Reconsideration must be sought within sixty days of the notice of the initial determination unless extended for good cause. Id. Sec. 404.909. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the reconsidered determination, he may request an evidentiary hearing before an ALJ, following which the ALJ issues a decision granting or denying benefits. Id. Sec. 404.929. An ALJ hearing must be requested within sixty days of notice of the reconsidered determination unless extended for good cause. Id. Sec. 404.933. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the ALJ's decision, he may, within sixty days of notice of that decision (subject to extension for good cause), seek review by the Appeals Council.7 Id. Secs. 404.967-404.968. The regulations also permit the Appeals Council to initiate review of the ALJ's decision on its own motion within sixty days after the date of the hearing decision. Id. Sec. 404.969.8

Cieutat argues that the Secretary's reading of section 404.988 to allow the Appeals Council to "reopen" a decision for twelve months for any reason, and for four years with good cause, renders meaningless section 404.969, which specifically limits the Appeals Council's ability to review on its own motion an ALJ's decision to sixty days from the date of the decision. According to Cieutat, reading section 404.988 this way would mean that the sixty-day limitations period of section 404.969 would have no effect, because its limit could always be overridden by the one- and fouryear limits of section 404.988. Therefore, Cieutat argues, the Secretary's interpretation of section 404.988 is inconsistent with the language of the regulations governing procedures for review.

The Secretary counters, persuasively we think, that this argument fails to recognize that the time limits in these two sections are not measured symmetrically.9 The sixty-day time period during which the Appeals Council may review a case on its own motion begins running from the date of the ALJ's hearing decision. See id. Sec. 404.969.10 In contrast, the one- and four-year periods during which the Appeals Council may reopen a case commence on the date the claimant is sent notice of the initial determination on his application for benefits. As the Secretary explains, given the time it takes to process a claim through the four levels of the administrative process, it is quite possible that the twelve-month period during which a case may be reopened without a showing of good cause will expire before the sixty-day review period has run.11 Thus, although it will often be the case, as here, that the sixty-day review period expires before the twelve-month reopening (without cause) period, this will not always be so. Hence, since there are situations where the Appeals Council would be free to review an ALJ's decision, but where it could not reopen the same ALJ decision absent a showing of good cause, we do not think that the Secretary's interpretation of section 404.988 robs the sixty-day limit of section 404.969 of all its meaning or effect.

Other circuits that have faced this issue have reached irreconcilable conclusions about how the regulations should be interpreted. The Fourth and Eighth Circuits have adopted the interpretation of section 404.988 urged by the Secretary. See Zimmermann v. Heckler, 774 F.2d 615, 617 (4th Cir.1985); Munsinger v. Schweiker, 709 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir.1983); Higginbotham v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 408, 410 (8th Cir.1985). These courts hold the view that section 404.988 refers to reopenings at the request of either the SSA or a claimant when it states the conditions under which decisions or determinations may be reopened, and therefore permits reopening at the initiative of the Appeals Council according to the graduated schedule set forth in that section.

The Eleventh Circuit has read section 404.988 differently. See Butterworth v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir.1986). That Circuit's interpretation, which Cieutat asks us to follow, invokes a "components" analysis: Section 404.988 allows reopening by both the SSA and claimants, but reopening initiated by the SSA is permissible only by a component or level of the SSA that properly has jurisdiction over the claim at the time of the reopening. Id. at 1385-88. Jurisdiction of the Appeals Council "component" of the SSA is governed by section 404.969, so that the Appeals Council may review on its own initiative decisions by an ALJ or by the Appeals Council itself only in accordance with the sixty-day limitation imposed by section 404.969. Id. at 1389.

Most recently, the First Circuit has adopted yet another interpretation of section 404.988. See McCuin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 817 F.2d 161 (1st Cir.1987). According to that court's view, section 404.988 should be read as allowing reopening only upon the basis of motions by claimants.12 Under this "claimants only" interpretation, neither the Appeals Council nor any other component of the SSA can reopen a case on its own initiative, but the Appeals Council may still invoke its own motion review pursuant to section 404.969.

In determining which of the available interpretations to adopt in this case, we are mindful of the deference we must give to the Secretary's interpretation of his agency's own regulations. In light of the fact that we do not consider that the interpretation urged by the Secretary deprives the sixty-day limitations period of section 404.969 of all its force, we cannot say that the Secretary's reading of section 404.988 as allowing the Appeals Council to reopen the ALJ's decision in Cieutat's case is plainly inconsistent with the language of the regulations.13 We therefore decline to invalidate the Secretary's interpretation of these regulations, according to which the SSA can reopen cases on its own initiative under the graduated conditions set forth in section 404.988. Consequently, we conclude that if the Appeals Council properly determined that good cause existed, it had the power, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.988, to reopen the decision of the ALJ in Cieutat's case.

We must now consider whether the Appeals Council had good cause to reopen. According to the regulations, good cause exists if new and material evidence is furnished, a clerical error was made, or the evidence considered in making the determination shows on its face that an error was made. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.989. The Appeals Council found that because it had received new and material evidence (namely, a Work Activity Report for Cieutat dated January 23, 1984 showing six months of employment in 1981 by ATI, Inc. as a truck driver/electrician, supporting employer verification of earnings, and a memorandum from the Office of Disability Operations regarding the 1981 work), good cause existed.

Cieutat argues that this evidence was available to the ALJ and, therefore, was not new. He is correct that there was admitted into evidence before the ALJ a vocational work report dated October 17, 1982, listing a job at ATI, Inc. Significantly, however, this report does not state the length of time Cieutat had worked. Moreover, where the report asks for a description of each job held, Cieutat wrote: "Jobs not explained--Did not work on long enough." Additionally, although Cieutat testified at the hearing that he had worked briefly as a security guard, he did not mention that he had worked for six months in 1981 for ATI, Inc. as a truck driver/electrician. In fact, he testified that he had not held any job successfully since 1977.14 The Secretary argues, and we agree, that taken as a whole, the evidence before the ALJ suggested that Cieutat engaged in no work of substance after 1977. Cieutat's testimony indicates that he misled the ALJ by giving the appearance that the longest he had worked was for three to six weeks as a security guard. The October 17, 1982 vocational report that was in evidence before the ALJ is also unclear, if not intentionally misleading, with respect to the duration of Cieutat's employment by ATI, Inc. Since the evidence as a whole before the ALJ suggested that Cieutat had not engaged in any work of substance since 1977, when in fact he had, the subsequently obtained evidence may properly be classified as "new" evidence.

The evidence in question is also "material." Interpreting a similarly worded requirement in the statutory provision that allows a district court to order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g), this Court has stated that evidence is material "only where there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the Secretary's determination had it been before him." Dorsey v. Heckler, 702 F.2d 597, 604-05 (5th Cir.1983). Here that standard is met. Whereas the evidence reviewed by the ALJ suggested that Cieutat had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 1977, the January vocational report and verified earnings indicated that he worked steadily for about six months in 1981 at well over minimum wage compensation. We believe there was at least a reasonable probability that evidence of substantial gainful activity performed in 1981 would have changed the outcome of the Secretary's disability determination; in fact, this evidence did lead the Appeals Council to reverse the ALJ's decision. We determine that the evidence in question was both new and material. We conclude, therefore, that good cause existed for the Appeals Council to reopen the ALJ's decision regarding Cieutat's disability.15

Cieutat argues that even if the Appeals Council had the authority to reopen the ALJ's decision, his 1981 work qualifies as "trial work" under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 422(c) and, consequently, the Appeals Council should have disregarded it in determining whether he was disabled. This argument lacks merit. As a general rule, the Secretary can consider work done by a claimant after the alleged onset of disability in determining whether the claimant was or is disabled. See Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 42-43 (4th Cir.1980). Section 422(c)(2) creates an exception to this rule that precludes the Secretary from considering services performed during a period of trial work "in determining whether ... disability has ceased ... during such period." This section, which defines trial work, also provides that "[a] period of trial work for any individual shall begin with the month in which he becomes entitled to disability insurance benefits...." Thus, by its terms, section 422(c) appears to preclude the Secretary only from considering work done after disability commences and only for purposes of determining whether the disability has ceased. Since the Appeals Council considered Cieutat's 1981 work for purposes of determining whether Cieutat ever became disabled, and since Cieutat never established an entitlement to benefits, the trial work period exception in section 422(c) would seem not to apply to the Appeals Council's consideration of Cieutat's 1981 work.

Even if the trial work exception in section 422(c) could otherwise apply to preclude consideration of Cieutat's 1981 work, however, the limitation placed on section 422(c) by 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1592(e) dictates that Cieutat's work does not qualify as a trial work period.16 This SSA regulation states that a trial work period "cannot begin before the month in which [the claimant files his] application for benefits...." Since Cieutat performed the work in question in 1981 and did not apply for benefits until October 6, 1982, section 404.1592(e) mandates that his work does not qualify as a trial work period.17 The Secretary, therefore, properly considered Cieutat's 1981 work in determining his disability status.

SSI benefits, authorized by Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1381-1383c, provide assistance to a disabled needy claimant without regard to the claimant's coverage under the Act for disability insurance benefits. See Thomas v. Schweiker, 666 F.2d 999, 1001 n. 1 (5th Cir.1982). To be eligible for SSI benefits, a claimant must be disabled and must have sufficiently limited income and resources. 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1382c, 1382(a). In contrast to the insured status eligibility requirements for disability insurance benefits,18 there are no eligibility period requirements for SSI benefits. See Dorsey v. Heckler, 702 F.2d 597, 606 (5th Cir.1983). The SSA regulations provide that an application for SSI benefits remains effective from the date of application to the date of the final decision by the Secretary, or the date of court review, whichever is later. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.330; Dorsey, 702 F.2d at 606-07.

Cieutat correctly asserts that the district court erred in basing its affirmance of the Appeals Council's denial of benefits in part on the termination of his insured status in December 1978. Nonetheless, this error is immaterial to our decision. Unlike the district court, the Appeals Council properly applied the Title II eligibility requirements only to Cieutat's claim for disability insurance benefits. It also properly applied the statutory provisions and regulations governing the determination of disability for purposes of SSI benefits in reaching its decision denying SSI benefits. See infra. Thus, the Appeals Council did not make the error made by the district court. Where, as here, appeal is taken from a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, this Court has held that our review is to be made independently of the determinations of the district court, and without regard to whether the district court acted correctly. Thomas, 666 F.2d at 1001 n. 2 (citing Olson v. Schweiker, 663 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.1981)). Accordingly, despite the district court's error, since the Secretary, acting through the Appeals Council, applied the proper legal standards in denying SSI benefits, we must uphold the Secretary's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.

For the reasons stated in the following unpublished portion of our opinion, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's determination that Cieutat was not disabled.

* * *

The Appeals Council had the power to reopen the ALJ's decision regarding Cieutat's claims for benefits. It applied the proper legal standard in treating Cieutat's 1981 work as substantial gainful activity rather than as a trial work period and in determining his eligibility for disability insurance and SSI benefits. In addition, substantial evidence supports the Appeals Council'sdetermination that Cieutat is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision upholding the Secretary's denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED.