Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06373/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06373-0/pdf.json

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

---

BILLY A. 

v. 

LOUIS W. 

Health & 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D 

United States; Cc .~!"'., ci Apr>ee,ls 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT '!'~-~1 ., .• ,...,;t 

GRAEF, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

SULLIVAN, M. D., Secretary of ) 

Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEBO 7 1991 

"1.0BERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6373 

(D.C. No. CIV-983-H) 

( W. D . Okla . ) 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

affirming the Secretary's decision that he did not qualify for 

social security disability 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 1 
\ 

In his application for benefits, plaintiff alleged that he 

was disabled due to arteriosclerotic heart disease and mental 

retardation. The Secretary found that plaintiff was not disabled 

either at step four 1 because he could return to his past relevant 

work or at step five because he could perform . medium work. The 

Secretary found that plaintiff was moderately limited in his 

ability to understand and carry out detailed instructions without 

extra supervision, but he could perform tasks not requiring good 

reading and writing skills. The Secretary found that there were 

jobs in the national economy which plaintiff could perform. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Secretary erred in 

finding that he can perform substantial gainful activity. 

Plaintiff argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to 

consider all the evidence and failed to consider the combined 

effects of his exertional and nonexertional impairments. 

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ incorrectly concluded that he 

was literate. 2 

"Our review of social security administration cases is 

usually quite limited. 'The Secretary's decision must be 

sustained if supported by substantial evidence. The reviewing 

court does not weigh the evidence and may not substitute its 

discretion for that of the agency.'" Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 

1 For an explanation of the steps through which 

must proceed in making its determination of 

Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 

the Secretary 

disability see 

1988). 

2 In his brief on appeal, the Secretary concedes that plaintiff 

is illiterate. Reply Brief at 18 n.3. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 2 
' 

706, 710-11 (10th Cir. 1989)(quoting Cagle v. Califano, 638 F.2d 

219, 220 (10th Cir. 198l)(citations omitted)). Substantial 

evidence is "'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Richardson v. 

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (197l)(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. 

v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 

Plaintiff is now fifty-five. 3 The evidence shows he worked 

in heavy labor and construction from 1951 until 1984 when he had 

coronary artery bypass surgery. After the surgery, plaintiff 

performed janitorial work for his brother-in-law. In January, 

1985, he started his own steel rebar business with his son. He 

stated that in that job he walked four hours a day and regularly 

carried rebar steel weighing up to fifty pounds. R. Vol. II at 

115. He worked until August, 1987, the alleged date of onset of 

his disability. 

The vocational expert testified that plaintiff's skills were 

nontransferable. However, he could be a dump truck driver, car 

3 Plaintiff turned fifty-five, advanced age, while this case 

was pending on appeal. This fact does not affect our 

determination of disability under the medical-vocational 

guidelines. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 2, Table 3, 

Rule 203.12. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 3 
wash helper, and back hoe operator. 4 Plaintiff could perform 

these jobs even though he is illiterate. R. Vol. II at so. 5 

Plaintiff argues that he cannot perform these jobs because of 

swelling in his feet, inability to lift his arms, dizziness, chest 

pain, numbness in his right leg due to a growth in his groin, 6 and 

a possible functional overlay. 

The ALJ found that plaintiff's complaints of pain and 

restrictions were not supported "to the extent he expresses them 

by the credible evidence of record." R. Vol. II at 9. The ALJ 

found that plaintiff was not well motivated and his testimony 

contained "significant hyperbole." Id. 

A pain producing impairment must be shown by objective 

medical evidence. Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161, 163 (10th Cir. 

1987). Plaintiff must present objective medical evidence that 

shows an impairment "'which could reasonably be expected to 

produce the pain ... alleged.'" Id. at 164, quoting 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(S)(A). 

Plaintiff has not received any treatment for his heart 

disorder since his recovery from the surgery. He takes no 

4 On appeal, the district court modified the Secretary's 

decision. The court found that plaintiff could not do his past 

relevant work nor could he do some of the jobs suggested by the 

vocational expert. The Secretary does not contest this 

modification. Therefore, for the purposes of this appeal, we 

accept these findings and consider only jobs the district court 

found plaintiff could perform. 

5 Plaintiff argues that he does not possess the reading and 

mathematical skills required to perform these jobs as set forth in 

the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Selected Characteristics. 

However, we note that plaintiff has performed jobs in the past 

which require higher reading level and mathematical skills. 

6 This growth was surgically removed in February, 1988. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 4 
medications, and sees no doctor. He has a history of some 

"fluttering" which Dr. Harvey, a consulting physician, 7 theorized 

may be some transient atrial fibrilation. Further, although 

plaintiff complained of dizziness and chest pain in his 

application for benefits, he denied any such symptoms both at the 

time of his examination by Dr. Harvey in 1987 8 and at the time of 

his hospital admission in February, 1988. R. Vol. II at 232. 

Plaintiff has also complained of back pain since the age of 

eighteen. This pain is relieved by aspirin and rest. An x-ray 

taken in 1988 noted LS-S1 joint space narrowing and calcification. 

However, an examination by Dr. Harvey showed a "quite good" range 

of motion and a normal gait. R. Vol. II at 223. Dr. Harvey noted 

no joint deformity, redness, swelling, heat, or tenderness. 

Dr. Harvey acknowledged plaintiff's complaint of shoulder 

pain apparently the result of a broken humerus which occurred 

twenty to twenty-five years ago. R. Vol. II at 221. However, Dr. 

Harvey's examination showed only minimal restriction in some 

movements. Id. at 224. Plaintiff "shows no limitation of motion 

really at any joint of any significance." Id. at 223. No medical 

evidence of an impairment which could be expected to produce the 

current alleged severity of shoulder pain exists considering that 

7 Although, "[t]he reports of reviewing physicians are ... accorded less weight than those of examining physicians," Talbot 

v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 1456, 1463 (10th Cir. 1987)(emphasis in 

original), plaintiff has not seen a physician since 1984 regarding 

any of the impairments for which he claims disability. Therefore, 

the ALJ may credit the consulting physician's reports absent any 

evidence to the contrary. 

8 Plaintiff did allege two episodes of chest pain, but he 

attributed these episodes to a pulled muscle. R. Vol. II at 220. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 5 
plaintiff has worked at heavy labor since the injury and alleged 

no new injury or deterioration since. 

Dr. Harvey did note that plaintiff had only one pulse in each 

foot. Id. at 222. There is no indication that this resulted in a 

medical impairment. 

Likewise, no possible functional overlay is shown by the 

record. The record shows no change in plaintiff's condition since 

his recovery from the bypass surgery until the date of his alleged 

disability. 

Plaintiff's complaints are not supported by other factors 

which we may consider in assessing the ALJ's evaluation of the 

credibility of subjective claims of pain greater than that usually 

associated with a claimed 

to 

impairment. 

find relief 

These 

"persistent for his 

willingness to 

attempts 

try any treatment prescribed, 

factors 

pain 

regular 

include 

and his 

use of 

crutches or a cane, regular contact with a doctor, . the 

possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical 

problems, ... the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of 

medication," and plaintiff's daily activities. Luna, 834 F.2d at 

165-66. 

Plaintiff is on no medication and has sought no treatment for 

his pain. There is no indication in the record that he has any 

psychological disorder which might impact on the severity of his 

physical problems. Plaintiff's daily activities are restricted, 

because of his pain and dizziness. However, the alleged severity 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 6 
of these restrictions is not supported by the record. The 

Secretary's decision, as modified by the district court, is 

supported by substantial evidence. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

7 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6373 Document: 010110098476 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 7