Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03126/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03126-0/pdf.json

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

---

• FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEC 2 'l 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER ' I 

Clerk 

ROBERT L. ELLISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-3126 

(D.C. No. 89-2092-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

I 

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. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court affirming 

the Secretary's denial of plaintiff Robert L. Ellison's request 

for disability benefits and suplemental security income.. The 

administrative law judge determined that plaintiff was not 

entitled to these benefits because he was not disabled as defined 

in the Social Security Act. See 42 u.s.c. S 423(d)(l)(A) and 

* This erder 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: 90-3126 Document: 010110097379 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 1 
• 

• 

1382c(a)(3)(A). Plaintiff argues on appeal that the ALJ erred by 

failing to find that plaintiff's impairment met or equalled the 

Listings of Impairments found in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 

1, failing to correctly evaluate plaintiff's testimony regarding 

his pain, and failing to adequately consider the combination of 

plaintiff's exertional and nonexertional impairments in 

determining whether plaintiff is capable of returning to work. We 

affirm. 

We review to determine whether the record as a whole contains 

substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's determination. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). We must evaluate the record to ascertain whether 

there is evidence to support the ALJ's decision, regardless of 

whether we would have reached a different result based on the 

record. Brown Y..!.. Bowen, 801 F.2d 361, 362 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence 

or if it is actually mere conclusion. Williams Y..!.. Bowen, 844 F.2d 

748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). We must also determine whether the 

Secretary's action is consistent with the Social Security Act and 

the relevant regulations and case law. Failure to apply the 

correct legal standard is grounds for reversal. Byron Y..!.. Heckler, 

742 F.2d 1232, 1235 (10th Cir. 1984). 

A review of the record in this case convinces us that the ALJ 

did not err in determining that plaintiff's impairment did not 

meet or equal the Listing of Impairments. Plaintiff contends the 

evidence presented demonstrated that he met sections 12.05(C), 

12.05(D), 12.06 and 12.07 of the Listings. Section 12.05 

addresses mental retardation and autism. To meet or equal Section 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3126 Document: 010110097379 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 2 
12.0S(C), one must satisfy a two-part test. First, the claimant 

must show a valid verbal, performance, or full scale I.Q. score on 

the WAID-R scale of 60 to 69. He or she must also exhibit a 

physical or other mental impairment imposing additional and 

significant work-related limitation of function. In this case, 

plaintiff underwent considerable psychological testing. His 

lowest score was a verbal I.Q. of 72. Plaintiff therefore did not 

meet the first part of the section 12.0S(C) test. The question of 

whether a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment is strictly 

a medical determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1526(b), 416.926(b). 

To aid in that determination, the ALJ considered the expert 

opinions of those who determined plaintiff had an I.Q. above 69. 

Accordingly, the Secretary's conclusion that plaintiff did not 

meet the section 12.0S(C) listing is supported by substantial 

evidence. See Cockerham Y..!.. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 492, 496 (8th Cir. 

1990) (claimant does not equal or meet section 12.0S(C) if lowest 

I.Q. is not 69 or lower). Moreover, the ALJ noted that although 

plaintiff suffered from some forms of anxiety, there was expert 

testimony indicating he was able to adjust to a job and perform 

routine social and family responsibilities. Plaintiff therefore 

also failed to satisfy the second part of the section 12.0S(C) 

test. 

Plaintiff also claims that he met or equaled the Listing at 

section 12.0S(D). This provision, however, also requires a valid 

verbal, performance, or full scale I.Q. of 60 to 69 on the WAIS. 

Plaintiff's I.Q. scores clearly exceeded that range and therefore 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3126 Document: 010110097379 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 3 
• 

he is not disabled under this section for the same reasons he 

cannot meet or equal the Listing at section 12.0S(C). 

The ALJ also properly concluded that plaintiff did not meet 

or equal the listing at section 12.06. We find substantial 

evidence in the record to support the ALJ's conclusion that 

plaintiff was not sufficiently limited to meet the "B" and "C" 

criteria for this Listing. For example, plaintiff's treating 

physician stated that plaintiff was unimpaired in his ability to 

relate to others,· engage in daily activities, maintain personal 

habits, and respond appropriately to supervision and co-workers. 

A treating physician's opinion is entitled to significant weight. 

Williams Y.=.. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 758 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff also contends the ALJ erred in failing to properly 

consider his somatoform disorder under section 12.07 of the 

Listings. Plaintiff cites Dr. Biller's testimony that plaintiff 

"may be given to ••• somatic concerns." This statement, 

however, does not suggest that plaintiff has a somatoform disorder 

as that condition is described in section 12.07. Given the lack 

of evidence in the record, the ALJ did not err by not evaluating 

plaintiff's condition under section 12.07. 

Plaintiff next argues the ALJ failed to correctly evaluate 

plaintiff's testimony regarding his pain. The ALJ found that 

although plaintiff suffered some discomfort, his subjective 

testimony regarding pain and limitation was not fully credible. 

Subjective complaints of pain must be evaluated in light of 

plaintiff's credibility and the medical evidence. Brown Y.:. Bowen, 

801 F.2d 361, 362-63 (10th Cir. 1986); Broadbent Y.!.. Harris, 698 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3126 Document: 010110097379 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 4 
.JI 

F.2d 407, 413 (10th Cir. 1983). The ALJ reasonably concluded 

based on the medical evidence presented that plaintiff was capable 

of working despite plaintiff's assertions to the contrary. We 

cannot say that this finding was not supported by substantial 

evidence. 

Plaintiff finally contends that the ALJ failed to adequately 

consider the combination of his exertional and nonexertional 

impairments in evaluating plaintiff's ability to return to work. 

The ALJ properly relied on the testimony of a vocational expert 

that plaintiff had residual functional capacity for a limited 

range of light work and there were jobs he could perform. This 

testimony is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion 

that plaintiff was not disabled. The order of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3126 Document: 010110097379 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 5