Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06189/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited States Court of .Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 19 1991 

MARGARET CATLIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-6189 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-1826-T) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District. Judge. 

**Honorable John L. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Kane, Senior District Judge, United States 

the District of Colorado, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. · 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6189 Document: 010110034264 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 1 
• Plaintiff appeals from the district court's order affirming 

the Secretary's denial of disability benefits plaintiff sought 

because of her rheumatoid arthritis. 1 Both parties agree that, in 

order to be entitled to benefits, plaintiff must establish that 

she became disabled no later than June 1984, the expiration of her 

period of insurability. The district court affirmed the 

Secretary's determination that, because plaintiff, during the 

period of her insurability, retained the residual functional 

capacity to perform past relevant work, sh~ was not entitled to 

disability benefits. 

The Secretary's determination will be upheld if it is 

supported by substantial evidence, which is such evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 

Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1987). Failure to 

apply the correct legal standards, as well as a lack of 

substantial supporting evidence, will be grounds for reversal. 

The Secretary reviews a claimant's application for disability 

benefits using a five-step evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. 

S 404.1520. A determination that the claimant is not disabled at 

any one of the five steps will result in the denial of benefits 

without further consideration. 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520(a). 

On appeal, plaintiff asserts that she proved her disability 

at the third step of the evaluation process by establishing that 

1 In her application for benefits, plaintiff asserted she was 

disabled due to both rheumatoid arthritis and psychiatric 

problems. Before this court, as well as the district court, 

however, plaintiff relies solely on her rheumatoid arthritis to 

establish her disability. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6189 Document: 010110034264 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 2 
, she met the medical listing for disabling rh~umatoid arthritis 

and, therefore, should have been determined to be disabled without 

further consideration of her age, education, and past work 

experience. See 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520(d). In order to establish 

her disability at this step, plaintiff bore the burden, see 

Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 804 (10th Cir. 1988), of proving 

the following: 

1.02 Active rheumatoid 

inflammatory arthritis. 

With both A and B. 

arthritis and other 

A. History of persistent joint pain, swelling, 

and tenderness involving multiple major joints (see 

1. 00D) and with signs of jo'int inflammation ( swelling 

and tenderness) on current physical examination despite 

prescribed therapy for at least 3 months, resulting in 

significant restriction of function of the affected 

joints, and clinical activity expected to last at least 

12 months; and 

B. Corroboration of diagnosis at some point in 

ti.me by either[:] 

1. Positive serologic test for rheumatoid factor; 

or 

2. Antinuclear antibodies; or 

3. Elevated sedimentation rate; or 

4. Characteristic histologic changes in biopsy of 

synovial membrane or subcutaneous nodule (obtained 

independent of Social Security disability evaluation). 

20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1, Sec. 1.02. Major joints are 

defined as including the "hip, knee, ankle, shoulder, elbow, or 

wrist and hand. (Wrist and hand are considered together as one 

major joint.)". Id. at sec. 1.00D. The record supports the 

Secretary's determination that plaintiff failed to establish a 

"significant restriction of function of the affected joints" 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6189 Document: 010110034264 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 3 
during the period of plaintiff's insurability and, therefore, was 

not entitled to a disability determination at this step in the 

evaluation process. 

The Secretary determined, at step four of the evaluation 

process, that because plaintiff retained the residual functional 

capacity to perform her past relevant work, during the period of 

her insurability, she was not entitled to disability benefits. 

Substantial evidence supported the Secretary's determination. 

Plaintiff asserts, however, that the Secretary, in making 

this determination, applied the wrong legal standard in 

considering plaintiff's complaints of disabling pain. In order to 

establish disabling pain, the claimant must first establish, by 

objective medical evidence, the existence of a pain-producing 

impairment. Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161, 163 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Second, the claimant must establish a sufficient nexus between 

that impairment and the pain of which the claimant complains. Id. 

Third, if the claimant establishes a sufficient nexus between the 

impairment and the pain, the Secretary, considering all evidence 

presented, must determine whether the pain is disabling. Id. 

The relationship between the impairment and the complaints of 

pain need only be a loose nexus: "'if an impairment is reasonably 

expected to produce some pain, allegations of disabling pain ... 

are sufficient[] ..• to require consideration of all relevant 

evidence.'" Huston v. Bowen, 838 F.2d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 

1988)(quoting Luna, 834 F.2d at 164)(emphasis in Luna). If an 

appropriate nexus exists, the Secretary must then consider all the 

evidence, including medical evidence, any other objective 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6189 Document: 010110034264 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 4 
• 

, 

indications as to the degree of pain, and subjective accounts of 

the severity of pain, in order to determine whether the claimant's 

pain is disabling. Luna, 834 F.2d at 163. 

The Secretary found, and the parties appear to agree, that 

plaintiff established the existence of a pain-producing 

impairment, rheumatoid arthritis. Further, there was an 

appropriate nexus between this pain-producing impairment and the 

pain of which plaintiff complained. The Secretary, however, after 

considering all relevant evidence, including "objective medical 

findings and signs, as well as nonmedical evidence and 

[plaintiff's] subjective complaints and symptoms," determined 

that, while plaintiff, "no doubt, experienced some degree of pain 

and discomfort due to the flare-ups of arthritis at times of 

overexertion," the evidence failed to establish that plaintiff's 

"ability to function was so severely impaired by pain as to 

preclude work at levels of exertion indicated to be within 

[plaintiff's] capacity at any time from June 1983 to June 30, 

1984." The Secretary thus applied the correct legal standard to 

the issue of disabling pain. Further, substantial evidence in the 

record supported the Secretary's determination that plaintiff's 

pain was not disabling. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6189 Document: 010110034264 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 5