Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01362/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1362

WAYNE HAILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:06-cv-00039-jlk)

Argued: May 15, 2008 Decided: July 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and Claude M. HILTON,

Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of

Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Joel Cawthon Cunningham, Jr., Halifax, Virginia, for

Appellant. Roxanne Andrews, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael

McGaughran, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, William B. Reeser,

Supervisory Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 10
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 10
3

PER CURIAM:

In 2003, Wayne E. Hailey filed for Social Security disability

benefits. After two hearings before an administrative law judge

(ALJ), the Social Security Commission adopted a final decision

denying Hailey’s request for disability benefits. Hailey filed

suit in United States District Court for the Western District of

Virginia. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and

Judge Jackson L. Kiser referred the matter to the magistrate judge

for a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge recommended

that Hailey’s motion be granted, holding that the Commission’s

decision to deny benefits was not supported by substantial

evidence. The district court rejected the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and entered summary judgment in favor of the

Commissioner, affirming the Commission’s final decision. We affirm

the district court’s ruling.

I.

Hailey’s childhood was a difficult one. He witnessed the rape

and murder of his mother and was sexually abused by a foster

father. He enlisted in the Navy in 1972, but left shortly

thereafter because he was unable to adjust to the lifestyle. He

spent a large portion of the years between 1981 and 2000 in prison

for armed robbery and second degree murder. While not in prison,

Hailey worked as a tobacco farmer. In July, 2003, Hailey quit

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 3 of 10
4

working and shortly thereafter applied for Social Security

disability benefits.

In his initial application for disability benefits, Hailey

cited myriad physical ailments, such as high blood pressure,

arthritis, the inability to stay in heat, a slipped back disc, and

a “busted leg” as reasons why he was unable to work. After a

hearing, the ALJ determined that Hailey’s physical ailments did not

render him disabled because he was able to perform light work.

Hailey appealed this decision to the Commission’s Appeals Council,

who remanded the case for the ALJ to consider evidence of mental

impairment. 

At the time of the second hearing, Hailey was 50 years old and

had approximately a ninth grade education. He was a part-owner of

his residence and rented out a portion of his space for storage

use. He lived without electricity and subsisted on public

assistance and food stamps. He lived with approximately 40 cats

that he cared for by donation. 

Hailey spends much of his time at a convenience store located

about six miles from his residence. At the store, Hailey converses

with the store’s owners, who help him read his mail. Hailey

performs custodial duties around the store in exchange for food

from the owners. 

On remand, the ALJ considered two psychologists’ reports. Dr.

Samuel Fletcher examined Hailey on May 26, 2005, at the request of

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 4 of 10
5

Hailey’s attorney. After administering an IQ test, Dr. Fletcher

found Hailey to have a verbal IQ of 71, a performance IQ of 70, and

a full-scale IQ of 68. Dr. Fletcher found that while Hailey would

be able to attend work regularly, he could not perform detailed or

complex tasks and would find simple and repetitive tasks

challenging. He diagnosed Hailey with a cognitive disorder that

approached mild mental retardation and stated that Hailey suffered

from depression, alcohol and nicotine dependence, and an antisocial personality disorder. He concluded that “[t]he stresses

encountered in competitive work frequently will result in

confusing” Hailey.

Dr. Karen Russell examined Hailey on January 12, 2006. After

administering an IQ test, Dr. Russell found Hailey to have a verbal

IQ of 85, a performance IQ of 75, and a full-scale IQ of 78. She

found that Hailey had an anxiety disorder, a history of alcohol

abuse, and an anti-social personality disorder. Ultimately, Dr.

Russell concluded that Hailey could work regularly.

II.

The Social Security Act provides that findings of the

Commissioner are conclusive if they are supported by substantial

evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,

589 (4th Cir. 1996)(“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 5 of 10
*The first step requires the Commission to determine whether

the claimant is currently working. The second step requires the

Commission to consider whether the claimant has a severe mental or

physical impairment. The third step requires the Commission to

determine whether the claimants impairment is medically severe.

The fourth step requires the Commission to consider whether the

claimant has the residual functional capacity to engage in his

6

conclusion”)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In

reviewing whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the

Commissioner, “we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence,

make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for

that of [the Commissioner].” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650,

653 (2005)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see

also Craig, 76 F.3d at 589(“Where conflicting evidence allows

reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant . . . is

disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on [the

Commissioner]”).

The Act defines disability as “the inability to engage in any

substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically

determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to

result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for

a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423

(d)(1)(A). To determine whether a claimant is eligible for

disability benefits, the Social Security Administration established

a five-step process. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; see also Walls v.

Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002). After finding that

Hailey satisfied the requirements of the first four steps,* the ALJ

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 6 of 10
past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)(4).

7

denied Hailey’s claim for benefits at the fifth step. The fifth

step requires that the Commissioner prove that Hailey had the

functional capacity to do any job that exists in significant

numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.960 (c)(2). The

ALJ found that while Hailey’s impairments were severe and he did

not have the capacity to engage in his past work as a tobacco

farmer, he did have the functional capacity to perform light

custodial work. 

In recommending that Hailey be granted summary judgment, the

magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ committed error by

discounting the opinions of Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Russell. A

relevant passage from Dr. Fletcher’s report states that: 

Hailey would not be able to perform detailed and complex

tasks, and in fact often would be challenged by simple

and repetitive tasks. He might be able to maintain

regular attendance in the workplace or perform work

activities on a consistent basis, but he clearly would

need special or additional supervision. His normal

workday or workweek would not be interrupted by such

things as auditory hallucinations or paranoia. He also

would likely be able to accept instruction from

supervisors, but again requiring considerable help.

While he might be able to interact with some coworkers,

he should not be expected to be able to interact

adequately with the public. The stresses encountered in

competitive work frequently will result in confusing him.

A relevant passage from Dr. Russell’s report states that:

[Hailey] is not likely able to tolerate the usual

stressors encountered in competitive work. If work was

not interpersonally based and he was left alone to

perform simple repetitive tasks, he would quite possibly

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 7 of 10
8

perform independently without too much difficulty;

however, if there were interruptions in the work and he

was asked to be doing additional activities, he would

likely have increasing episodes of anxiety that would

then lead to him becoming possibly violent and/or walk

off the job.

At the second hearing, the ALJ heard opinion testimony from a

vocational expert (VE) about whether there were jobs available for

a person who had the limitations identified in Dr. Fletcher’s and

Dr. Russell’s reports. The VE testified a person with the

limitations described in Dr. Russell’s report could perform light

custodial work, but that a person with the limitations described in

Dr. Fletcher’s report could not. When asked by Hailey’s counsel,

quoting from Dr. Russell’s report, whether there were jobs

available for a person who “is not likely able to tolerate the

usual stressors encountered in competitive work,” the VE replied

that there were not. The magistrate judge reasoned that the VE’s

answer to this second question meant that Hailey’s mental condition

as described by both Dr. Fletcher and Dr. Russell meant that Hailey

could not find gainful employment and was therefore disabled under

the Act. 

We agree with the district court that the Commissioner’s view

better comports with the two doctors’ findings when each report is

examined in total. In addition to the paragraph quoted above, Dr.

Russell’s report stated that Hailey is “likely to be able to

perform work activities on a consistent basis,” “is likely able to

maintain regular attendance in a workplace,” “would likely benefit

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 8 of 10
9

from work duties that are simple and repetitive and of a rote-task

nature,” and had only a moderate limitation in his ability to

“respond appropriately to work pressures in a usual work setting.”

Moreover, while Dr. Fletcher’s report is more skeptical of Hailey’s

ability to function in a competitive work environment, he does

observe that Hailey “might be able to maintain regular attendance

in the workplace or perform work activities on a consistent basis,

but he clearly would need special or additional supervision.” 

When weighing the two doctors’ opinions, the ALJ deemed Dr.

Russell’s report to be more credible. In her report, Dr. Russell

noted that Hailey had suffered a foot injury prior to his

examination by Dr. Fletcher and that this injury likely contributed

to Hailey’s lower IQ scores on Dr. Fletcher’s test. Furthermore,

Hailey’s IQ as measured by Dr. Fletcher was below the level

typically accepted by the Navy for enlistment purposes, thus

suggesting that Hailey might have been distracted during Dr.

Fletcher’s examination. As the ALJ has the responsibility to weigh

conflicting evidence and determine witness credibility, Johnson,

434 F.3d at 653, we find that the ALJ’s decision to give Dr.

Russell’s report more weight than Dr. Fletcher’s is supported by

substantial evidence.

The Fourth Circuit has stated that “for a vocational expert’s

opinion to be relevant or helpful, it must be based upon a

consideration of all other evidence in the record and it must be in

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 9 of 10
10

response to proper hypothetical questions which fairly set out all

of claimant’s impairments.” Walker v. Brown, 889 F.2d 47, 50 (4th

Cir. 1989). When the VE was asked whether an individual with all

the characteristics described in Dr. Russell’s report could find

work, the VE concluded that such an individual could find gainful

employment doing light janitorial work. It was only when the VE

was asked to analyze one paragraph from Dr. Russell’s report in

isolation that he opined that such an individual would be unable to

function in a work environment. Thus, the ALJ and the Commission

were faced with a situation where one doctor’s findings led to the

conclusion that Hailey was disabled and another doctor’s findings

led to the conclusion that he was not. The ALJ identified the

reasons why he deemed Dr. Russell’s report more credible than Dr.

Fletcher’s and we believe that finding is supported by substantial

evidence. Consequently, we find that the Commissioner’s decision

to deny benefits under the Social Security Act is supported by

substantial evidence. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is 

 AFFIRMED.

Appeal: 07-1362 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 10 of 10