Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07035/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07035-0/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 Uniud States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LEVIS. DUNCAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of ) 

Health and Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 91-7035 

(D.C. No. 87-90-C) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Levis. Duncan (claimant) appeals from a 

district court order affirming a decision of the Secretary denying 

social security disability benefits and supplemental security 

income benefits. Following a third evidentiary hearing, the 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 1 
administrative law judge (ALJ) found claimant not disabled and the 

Appeals Council adopted that finding and denied benefits. 

Claimant's disability claim is based on the exertional and 

nonexertional limitations imposed by the painful degenerative 

condition .of his lumbar spine. Beginning in 1979, claimant 

injured his back in a number of work-related incidents, and he has 

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August of 1985, 

the alleged date of onset. The ALJ's determination turned on the 

fifth step of the controlling sequential analysis, i.e., after 

finding that (1) claimant was not gainfully employed, (2) claimant 

suffered from severe impairments, (3) claimant's impairments did 

not meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments 

listed in the regulations, and (4) claimant was unable to perform 

his past relevant work, the ALJ concluded that (5) considering the 

claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and 

work experience, he was able to engage in other work and therefore 

was not disabled. See generally Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 

140-42 (1987)(summarizing five-step evaluation process); Sorenson 

v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 710 (10th Cir. 1989)(same). In arriving 

at this final conclusion, the ALJ found claimant capable of 

performing a full range of sedentary work and, relying for 

guidance on both the testimony of a vocational expert and the 

pertinent Medical-Vocational Guideline (grid), i.e., 20 C.F.R., 

Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 2, Table No. 1, Rules 201.27, 201.28, 

determined that claimant could perform a significant number of 

jobs available in the economy. See generally Gossett v. Bowen, 

862 F.2d 802, 806 (10th Cir. 1988). 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 2 
Claimant presents three issues for review, which, for ease of 

analysis, we shall address in the following order: 

1. Whether the ALJ incorrectly assessed claimant's evidence 

of pain; 

2. Whether the ALJ .. improperly 

attendance with the ability 

equated claimant's school 

to engage in substantial 

gainful activity; and 

3. Whether the findings underlying the determination of 

claimant's nondisability are based 

evidence. 

on substantial 

Appellant's Brief at 1. We review the Secretary's decision in 

connection with these issues "to determine whether the 

[Secretary's] findings are supported by substantial evidence and 

whether the Secretary applied correct legal standards." Pacheco 

v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 695, 696 (10th Cir. 1991). 

The framework for the proper analysis of claimant's evidence 

of pain is set out in Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 

1987). In 

established 

brief, we must 

a pain-producing 

determine 

impairment 

(1) 

by 

whether 

objective 

claimant 

medical 

evidence; (2) if so, whether there is a "loose nexus" between the 

proven impairment and the claimant's subjective allegations of 

pain; and (3) if so, whether, considering all the evidence, both 

objective and subjective, claimant's pain is in fact disabling. 

Id. at 163-64. The ALJ found that claimant has "a condition which 

could result in pain," Recommended Decision of July 20, 1989, at 

3, and, for purposes of argument, we may assume the requisite link 

between that condition and claimant's subjective allegations of 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 3 
pain, cf. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 753-54 (10th Cir. 

1988)(summarily holding that claimant with degenerative disk 

disease necessitating two surgical operations satisfied first two 

steps of Luna analysis). The decisive question is whether, on the 

basis of the medical data, any other objective indications of the 

degree of pain, and claimant's own account of its severity, the 

ALJ could properly discount claimant's subjective allegations and 

conclude that "claimant's capacity for the full range of sedentary 

work has not been significantly compromised by the nonexertional 

conditions." Recommended Decision of July 20, 1989, at 5. 

The ALJ's decision reflects a thorough, reasoned evaluation 

of the pertinent evidence, which provides abundant support for the 

ALJ's findings on pain. See id. at 3-4. By way of challenge, 

claimant cites his own testimony and daily diaries, as well as a 

report of his treating physician, Dr. Albrand, whom claimant 

maintains "verified the [claimant's] complaints of pain." 

Appellant's Brief at 6, 20. While the former evidence from 

claimant clearly does not "overwhelm" the ample evidence recited 

in support of the ALJ's determination, see generally Ellison v. 

Sullivan, 929 F.2d 534, 536 (10th Cir. 1990)("[e]vidence is not 

substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence"), the opinion 

of claimant's treating physician is entitled to "special weight," 

Campbell v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 1518, 1523 n.5 (10th Cir. 1987). 

However, the report in question, and the myelogram and CT scan 

that followed closely thereon, actually support the ALJ's 

conclusion regarding the relatively limited nature of the 

degenerative condition of claimant's back disclosed by the 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 4 
objective medical evidence. See Appendix at 333-34 (Dr. Albrand 

report of May 14, 1987, noting impression of "low back pain due to 

strain" and scheduling diagnostic tests for disk herniation, but 

not including any mention of the pain-related sitting and standing 

limitations . critical to claimant's disability - claim1 ), 325-30 

(documentation of diagnostic tests performed on May 27, 1987, 

showing no evidence of herniation or significant stenosis and only 

mild or minimal degenerative disk changes); see also id. at 342 

(report of MRI performed on November 4, 1988, showing no evidence 

of herniation, only mild stenosis, and some disk degeneration with 

no change in disk space height). We hold that the ALJ's treatment 

of claimant's pain allegations was supported by substantial 

evidence. 

We also reject claimant's contention that the ALJ improperly 

relied upon claimant's school attendance to find him not disabled. 

Far from mechanically equating schooling with substantial gainful 

activity, the ALJ simply noted that it was "consistent with [not 

determinative of] sedentary work and does not establish 

deficiencies of concentration" and that it illustrated claimant's 

lack of "difficulty with concentration, remembering and carrying 

out instructions in the classroom setting." Recommended Decision 

of July 20, 1988, at 3, 4 (emphasis added). It is plain from the 

ALJ's decision that claimant's school attendance was just one of a 

1 Indeed, there is no post-onset instance documented in the 

record of any physician recogniz i ng or imposing such limitations. 

The medical record is likewise devoid of any findings regarding 

claimant's general inability to engage in work-related activities. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 5 
host of considerations leading to the determination of claimant's 

nondisability. 

Finally, claimant argues that the ALJ's decision is not 

supported by substantial evidence because his pain and related 

limitations precluded the ALJ's express reliance . on either the 

grids, see Gossett, 862 F.2d at 806 (grids can serve only as a 

framework to aid in step-five determination where pain affects 

range of activities claimant can participate in), or the 

unfavorable opinion of the vocational expert elicited by a 

hypothetical inquiry omitting these considerations, see Talley v. 

Sullivan, 908 F.2d 585, 588 (10th Cir. 1990)(vocational expert's 

opinion regarding claimant's employment capabilities is probative 

only if premised on accurate and complete characterization of 

operative impairments). The necessary, if tacit, premise of this 

argument, however, is that these factors "significantly limit 

[claimant's] 'ability to perform the full range of work in a 

particular RFC' category [i.e., sedentary work] on a sustained 

basis." Williams, 844 F.2d at 752 (quoting Teter v. Heckler, 775 

F.2d 1104, 1105 (10th Cir. 1985)). Since we have already affirmed 

the ALJ's conclusion that claimant's capacity for the full range 

of sedentary work is not significantly affected by the 

consequences of his alleged pain, 2 we further hold that the ALJ's 

2 We note that claimant supplemented his claim of physical 

disability with allegations of an adjustment disorder. However, 

the ALJ's determination that the latter "is not of the level of 

severity to interfer[e] with the performance of sedentary work," 

Recommended Decision or July 20, 1989, at 4, has not been directly 

challenged on appeal and, in any event, is substantially supported 

by the psychiatric evidence in the record, see Appendix at 131, 

209. 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 6 
resultant step-five determination of nondisability was properly 

based on both the grids and the vocational expert's testimony 

regarding the jobs available to claimant with a sedentary RFC. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District. of. Oklahoma affirming the Secretary's denial of 

benefits based on a finding of nondisability is, accordingly, 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-7035 Document: 010110090787 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 7