Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07081/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07081-0/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 

MARVIN BANKS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

F IL~D 

United States~~ Appeals Te~th Cn"C\nt 

FEB 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-7081 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. 90-338-S) 

) ( E. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Claimant Marvin Banks appeals a district court order 

affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to deny his application for disability insurance benefits 

* 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: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 1 
and supplemental security income, see 42 u.s.c. §§ 423(a), 1381a. 

The administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected Banks' allegation of 

disability commencing in 1981 finding him capable of gainful 

employment, and the Appeals Council denied Banks' subsequent 

request for review of the ALJ's decision. 

Banks applied for benefits on July 22, 1988, claiming 

disability since 1981 due to "a head injury and leg trouble." 

App. Vol. II at 46 and 50-51. At that ti.me, he was forty-five 

years old and had a tenth grade education. Id. at 25. Banks was 

last employed in 1981 as a production worker in California for a 

glass company. Id. 26-27. This job required frequent lifting and 

carrying of objects. Id. 

An on-the-job injury in 1981 led to surgery in January 1982 

for a herniated cervical disc. Id. at 141-53. Banks' 

postoperative course was 

Banks was examined by Dr. 

relatively normal. 

Robert B. Peoples, 

In January 1984, 

an orthopedic 

surgeon, in connection with a workers' compensation claim. Id. 

161. In his report, Dr. Peoples noted that Banks suffered from 

pain across his left shoulder to his left upper arm, restricted 

motion in his cervical spine, and distinct atrophy of his left 

deltoid, pectoral, and upper left extremity muscles. Id. at 167. 

According to Dr. Peoples, Banks had a permanent partial disability 

that would preclude placing him in a physical situation where he 

would have to depend on his left extremity for heavy lifting or to 

prevent falling. Id. at 167-68. 

In June 1985, Banks was hospitalized and underwent surgical 

r emoval of an aneurysm behind his right knee. Id. 172-80. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 2 
Medical records from the clinic which treated Banks following the 

surgery indicate that Banks complained of pain in his leg on 

several occasions. Id. at 194-98. On August 25, 1985, the 

physician treating Banlcs at the clinic reported tha t Banks was 

using crutches. Id. at 194. 

In January 1987, Banks was hospitalized for seizures. Id. at 

181-93. Medical records state that Banks had a history of seizure 

disorders and was on medication for a while but had been off the 

medication without problems. Id. at 182. Banks was treated with 

Valiwn and Dilantin which stopped his seizure activity. Id. at 

182-83. 

After filing his claims for benefits, Banks was seen on 

September 23, 1988, by Dr. Mike Houghton, his treating physician. 

Id. at 200. Dr. Houghton reported in pertinent part that Banks 

ambulated with a cane and his gait was slow and guarded. Id. at 

202. Banks informed Dr. Houghton that he could walk one-half mile 

without difficulty with the aid of a cane. Id. According to Dr. 

Houghton, there was significant loss of strength in Banks' right 

leg, id., and muscle atrophy in Banks' right leg necessitated his 

use of a cane, id. at 204. 

At his hearing, Banks testified that he suffered from almost 

constant pain in his right leg, id. at 31-32, cramps in his left 

hand, id. at 36, and weakness in his left arm, id. Banks stated 

that the pain in his leg subsided when he sat down and kept the 

leg elevated. Id. at 32. Banks also related that he had been 

struck in the head with a hatchet in 1977 or 1978. Id. at 33. 

Banks' medical records indicate that a CT scan of his brain in 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 3 
February 1982 revealed a bony abnormality in the left temporal 

region from a previous trauma with underlying encephalomalacia. 

Id. at 160. Dr. Houghton linked Banks' seizures to this head 

trauma. Id. at 201. According to Banks, he could no longer read 

or write, and his ability to remember and organize things was 

getting progressively worse. Id. at 26 and 35-36. Banks noted 

that he continued to take Dilantin to control his seizures. Id. 

at 35. 

The ALJ denied Banks' disability claims at the fifth step of 

the controlling process, i.e., after finding that (1) Banks was 

not gainfully employed, (2) Banks suffered from severe 

impairments, (3) Banks' impairments did not meet or equal one of 

the presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, 

and (4) Banks was unable to perform the work he had done in the 

past, the ALJ concluded that (5) considering Banks' residual 

functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience, he 

was able to perform 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 Banks capable of performing a 

full range of light work, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 

416.967(b), 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. 2, 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 4 
Rule 202.18, determined that Banks could perform a significant 

number of jobs available in the economy. See generally Gossett v. 

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

The primary issue raised in this appeal is whether the ALJ's 

decision is supported by substantial evidence. Bernal v. Bowen, 

851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). Banks' arguments appear to 

focus for the most part on whether there was sufficient evidence 

to allow the ALJ to conclude that his nonexertional impairments, 

including pain, a mental impairment, and alcoholism, did not 

preclude him from performing a full range of light work. Our 

review of the record reveals an even more fundamental issue, i.e., 

whether there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's 

finding that Banks had the exertional capacity to perform a full 

range of light work. The first issue is essentially subsumed by 

the second, since if Banks lacked the exertional capacity to 

perform light work, there is no need to consider whether 

nonexertional impairments imposed limitations on that capacity. 

We therefore turn to a review of Banks' exertional limitations. 

The social security regulations define light work as follows: 

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a 

time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects 

weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted 

may be very little, a job is in this category when it 

requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it 

involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and 

pulling of arm or leg controls. 

20. C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). To be considered capable of performing 

a full range of light work, a claimant must have the ability to 

perform substantially all the foregoing activities. Social 

Security Ruling 83-10 further explains that the ability to perform 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 5 
a full range of light work "requires standing or walking, off and 

on for a total of approximately six hours of an eight hour work 

day[, and] sitting may occur intermittently during the remaining 

time • II 

The ALJ found Banks capable of performing a full range of 

light work without citing the foregoing criteria or citing any 

specific evidence establishing Banks' 

prolonged standing and walking or frequent 

the ALJ relied on residual functional 

consisted of checked boxes filled in by 

tolerance for either 

lifting. Apparently, 

capacity forms which 

doctors who did not 

examine Banks but reviewed his medical records. App. Vol. II at 

65 and 80 . These forms do not establish Banks' residual 

functional capacity for light work for two reasons. First, it is 

well established in this circuit that such evaluation forms, 

unaccompanied by thorough written reports, are not substantial 

evidence. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F . 2d 508, 515 (10th Cir. 1987). 

More importantly, the forms in this case do not even indicate that 

Banks is capable of standing or walking for six hours out of an 

eight-hour work day as is required for light work . Instead, the 

boxes on the forms indicate that Banks can stand or walk for only 

two to four hours during an eight-hour day . 

There is credible evidence that Banks cannot stand or walk 

for a significant length of time. As discussed above, Banks' 

medical records indicate that he has used a cane or crutch since 

shortly after the surgery on his right l e g, which was almost three 

years before he filed his claims for benefits. Moreover, Dr. 

Houghton noted that Banks suffers f r om signifi cant loss o f 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 6 
strength in his right leg, and that Banks' use of a cane is 

medically necessary in view of muscle atrophy in Banks' right leg. 

As Banks' treating physician, the opinion of Dr. Houghton is 

entitled to substantial weight. Id. at 513. 

The evidence of Banks' activities in the record do not 

indicate that he can perform light work. Banks' disability 

reports state in conclusory fashion that he makes his bed and has 

in the past cut grass, fed farm animals, and fixed a fence. 

App. Vol. II at 108, 113. At the hearing, Banks testified that he 

does some housework, drove occasionally, cooked for his son 

occasionally, watched football on TV, and had recently tried 

carrying firewood but quit when his arm and back became sore. Id. 

at 37-39. As discussed above, light work requires a good deal of 

standing, walking, and lifting of objects. Banks' ability to 

drive and cook occasionally, watch TV, and spend an unspecified 

amount of time cutting grass, feeding farm animals, and fixing a 

fence is not substantial evidence that he can spend much of an 

eight-hour day walking, standing, or lifting objects. Banks' 

activities in the record simply are not consistent with the 

conclusion that he can perform light work "day in and day out, in 

the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real 

people work in the real world." McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 

1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 1982); see also Talbot v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 

1456, 1462 (10th Cir. 1987)("activities (which] were not conducted 

on a regular basis, (and did not] involve prolonged activity" did 

not establish the capability for light work). 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 7 
The burden was on the Secretary to produce evidence that 

Banks could perform other work than that which he could perform 

before suffering impairments. Talbot, 814 F.2d at 1460. Here, 

the Secretary did not meet his burden of showing that Banks could 

perform light work. We conclude that further fact-finding is 

necessary because there is insufficient evidence as to Banks' 

residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. In light 

of the uncertainty of Banks' exertional range, we need not address 

his nonexertional impairments. 

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the judgment of the 

district court with instructions to remand the case to the 

Secretary to determine, after such proceedings as are deemed 

necessary, whether Banks can perform sedentary work as that term 

is defined in the social security regulations, see 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1567(a), giving 

nonexertional impairments. 

appropriate consideration 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

8 

to any 

Appellate Case: 91-7081 Document: 010110222596 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 8