Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07035/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07035-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 2 3 1992 

NELSON BOWEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

) No. 92-7035 

) (D.C. No. CV-91-206-S) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and 

BRIMMER,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of Wyoming, 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 1
Claimant Nelson Bowen appeals from the district court's order 

affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to deny Claimant's application for Social Security 

disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. We affirm. 

I. Background 

Claimant filed his application for benefits on March 16, 

1989, alleging disability since May 15, 1988. Claimant, a 

fifty-five year old man with a fifth-grade education, claims 

disability due to nervousness, headaches, depression, arthritis, 

and stomach problems. His application was denied initially and on 

reconsideration. Claimant requested and received a hearing before 

an administrative law judge on January 29, 1990. The ALJ 

determined that Claimant was not disabled under 42 u.s.c. 1382c, 

and denied benefits. The Appeals Council denied Claimant's 

request for review of the decision. 

Claimant filed a complaint in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 405(g). A magistrate judge submitted findings and recommended 

that the decision of the ALJ be affirmed. The district court 

agreed and adopted the magistrate judge's 

recommendation. Claimant appeals this decision. 

II. Discussion 

findings and 

On appeal, Claimant contends that (1) the decision of the ALJ 

is not based on substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ failed to fully 

develop the record, specifically regarding Claimant's allegations 

of disabling pain and mental condition; and (3) the ALJ erred in 

failing to obtain the testimony of a vocational expert. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 2
Our review of the Secretary's decision is limited to 

determining whether the decision is supported by substantial 

evidence and "whether the Secretary applied correct legal 

standards." Pacheco v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 695, 696 (10th Cir. 

1991). In order to determine whether the Secretary's decision is 

supported by substantial evidence, we must meticulously examine 

the record. However, we may neither reweigh the evidence nor 

substitute our discretion for that of the Secretary. Casias v. 

Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

In order to determine whether a claimant is under a 

disability, the Secretary applies a five-step process. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 

(10th Cir. 1988)(providing an in-depth discussion of the five 

steps). If a claimant is determined to be disabled or not 

disabled at any step, the evaluation process ends there. Sorenson 

v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 710 (10th Cir. 1989). The burden of proof 

is on the claimant through step four; then it shifts to the 

Secretary. Id. The ALJ's determination in this case ended at 

step four when he concluded that Claimant was able to return to 

his past relevant work as a park employee doing general clean up 

and maintenance. 

The ALJ has a duty to fully develop the record, especially 

when the claimant has little education and is unrepresented at the 

hearing. Hill v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 972, 974 (10th Cir. 1991)(per 

curiam). In all cases the ALJ has a duty of inquiry "'to inform 

himself about facts relevant to his decision and to learn the 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 3
claimant's own version of those facts.'" Dixon v. Heckler, 811 

F.2d 506, 510 (10th Cir. 1987)(quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 

U.S. 458, 471 n.1 (1983)(Brennan, J., concurring)). 

Although Claimant has limited formal education, he was 

represented by an attorney at the hearing. Claimant contends that 

the ALJ did not fulfill his duty to "participate in" and develop 

Claimant's case. Appellant's Br. at 7-9. He argues that the ALJ 

did not ask questions of Claimant and "[t)he brief 15 minute 

hearing did not amount to a full and fair hearing." Id. at 16. 

The length, or brevity, of a hearing is not indicative of whether 

or not the ALJ met his duty to fully develop the record. See 

Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992). 

As stated earlier, the burden of proof through step four 

remains with the claimant. Williams, 844 F.2d at 751 n.2. It is 

not enough for a claimant to establish a diagnosis of a particular 

condition; he must also establish that the condition is severe 

enough to be disabling. See Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 863 

(6th Cir. 1988)(a diagnosis of arthritis does not prove the 

severity of the condition). The question on appeal is not whether 

the Claimant presented evidence which would support a different 

decision, but whether he presented sufficient evidence to support 

the decision reached. Although the record indicates that Claimant 

sought infrequent medical attention for his arthritis, he 

presented no x-rays or other clinical evidence of the severity of 

the condition. Regardless of Claimant's contention to the 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 4
contrary, the ALJ, although obligated to fully develop the record, 

is not required to obtain sufficient evidence to find a claimant 

disabled. 

The ALJ found Claimant's complaints of pain to lack 

credibility. A claimant is required to produce objective medical 

evidence indicating the existence of an impairment "'which could 

reasonably be expected to produce the pain ... alleged.'" Luna 

v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 

§ 423(d) (5) (A)). We 

161, 164 (10th Cir. 1987)(quoting 42 U.S.C. 

must determine (1) whether a claimant 

established a pain-producing impairment by objective medical 

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

impairment and a claimant's subjective allegations of pain; and 

(3) if so, whether considering all the evidence, both objective 

and subjective, a claimant's pain is in fact disabling. Luna v. 

Bowen, 834 F.2d at 163-64. 

The ALJ noted that during Claimant's examination by Dr. 

Richard Winters, a consulting physician, Claimant complained that 

he had quit his job because of arthritis, R. Vol. II at 159, but 

that during a psychosocial evaluation by Carl Albert Community 

Mental Health Center on February 14, 1989, Claimant reported that 

he had quit his job because of depression and withdrawal, id. at 

147. Although Dr. Winters' examination supports a diagnosis of 

mild to moderate degenerative arthritis, R. Vol. II at 160, there 

is no clinical evidence in the record which would support 

Claimant's allegations of severe pain. 

Credibility determinations by the ALJ are generally binding 

on review. Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 807 (10th Cir. 1988). 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 5
There is no real dispute that Claimant's arthritic condition may 

potentially result in the kind of pain he alleges. The question 

therefore is whether there is substantial evidence to support the 

ALJ's determination, contrary to Claimant's own testimony 

regarding his pain, that Claimant can perform the work activities 

associated with his past relevant work. Claimant was given an 

adequate opportunity to describe his pain and how the pain limited 

his activities. An inability to work without pain is not 

sufficient support for a finding of disability. Id. Even 

assuming that Claimant satisfied the first two criteria of Luna, 

on the basis of the medical data and Claimant's own testimony as 

to the severity and limitations of his pain, the ALJ properly 

concluded that Claimant's pain is not disabling. 

Claimant also argues that the ALJ failed to adequately 

consider Claimant's mental condition. Claimant alleges that he 

suffers from a "major disabling depression which should have been 

further developed by the Administrative Law Judge." Appellant's 

Br. at 12. In evaluating mental impairments, the Secretary must 

determine whether a mental disorder exists and whether the 

disorder, alone or combined with other impairments, constitutes a 

disability. See 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(l)(A). 

At the Secretary's request, the Claimant was examined by a 

psychiatrist, Dr. Harold Grant. Dr. Grant stated that Claimant's 

intellectual functioning is dull normal, but that his ability to 

relate is unimpaired, his cooperation is average, his affect is 

appropriate, his speech is comprehensible, he shows no loosening 

of associations, and his orientation for time, place, and person 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 6
is intact. R. Vol. II at 169-70. Dr. Grant noted that Claimant 

suffers from a depressive disorder and a dependent personality 

disorder, but that his alcohol dependence is in partial remission. 

Id. at 170. He opined that in relation to Claimant's ability to 

carry out work-related activities, Claimant's relationships with 

others is unimpaired, he would probably accept supervision, his 

- attention is fair, his application is fair to poor, and his 

comprehension of instructions is good. Id. at 171. 

The ALJ determined that Claimant's mental impairments are not 

severe enough to meet or equal the severity set forth in the 

regulations. Once Claimant has established a mental impairment, 

he must then provide evidence to establish a disabling impairment 

under the listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. I. 

Claimant must exhibit marked or frequent functional limitations in 

two of the listed behavior signs to establish disability. 1 While 

evidence of Claimant's depression and alcohol dependency is 

documented, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination 

that these conditions do not affect Claimant's ability to function 

in a work environment. 

1 The criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(3) are: 

1. Restrictions of activities of daily living; 

2. Difficulties in maintaining social functioning; 

3. Deficiencies of concentration, persistence, or pace 

resulting in failure to complete tasks in a timely manner; 

4. Episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work or 

work-like settings which cause the individual to withdraw 

from that situation or to experience exacerbation of signs 

and symptoms. 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 7
Finally, Claimant contends that the ALJ was under a duty to 

obtain the testimony of a vocational expert regarding his ability 

to perform his past relevant work. Claimant again insists upon 

misplacing the burden of proof upon the ALJ. The burden shifts to 

the Secretary only upon a showing by Claimant that he has a 

disability which prevents him from performing his past relevant 

work. Turner v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 326, 328 (10th Cir. 1985). 

Therefore, the ALJ was under no obligation to obtain the opinion 

and testimony of a vocational expert. See Walden v. Bowen, 813 

F.2d 1047, 1049 (10th Cir. 1987)(per curiarn)(ALJ not required to 

seek opinion of vocational expert when claimant fails to establish 

prima facie case of disability). 

In summary, Claimant failed to produce sufficient evidence to 

support a conclusion that he could not continue his past relevant 

work. Therefore, following a thorough review of the record on 

appeal, we conclude that the Secretary's determination that 

Claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act is supported by substantial evidence. The judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-7035 Document: 010110353522 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 8