Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07073/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07073-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat~ Court of Ap~ab 

'fe!lt~ Ci ~ui•. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

HARRY HAMMON, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR O G 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerl: . 

v. ) No. 91-7073 

) (D.C. No. CIV 90-229-S) 

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

Health & Human Services, 

) { E. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before EBEL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior 

States District Court for the District of 

designation. 

District Judge, United 

Colorado, 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: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 1
Plaintiff Harry Hammon, Jr., appeals from an order upholding 

the Secretary's denial of Plaintiff's application for supplemental 

security income under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. 

We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

Plaintiff applied for benefits in July 1986, contending he 

was disabled due to heart problems, arthritis, gout, and 

emphysema . His application was denied initially and on 

reconsideration. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge 

(ALJ) found that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council 

vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded for the ALJ to obtain a 

consultative psychological evaluation, additional pulmonary 

function studies, and a consultative examination in internal 

medicine for the evaluation of arthritis. The Appeals Council 

also directed the ALJ to consider Dr. Monte McAlester's opinion 

that Plaintiff is disabled and to evaluate Plaintiff's complaints 

of pain. 

The ALJ obtained a consultative psychological evaluation from 

Dr. Terry Shaw and a consultative examination in internal medicine 

from Dr. Gordon Strom. Following a second hearing, the ALJ again 

found that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council 

remanded because the ALJ failed to assess Plaintiff's subjective 

complaints of pain and faile d to complete a Psychiatric Review 

Technique (PRT) form as required by 20 C.F.R. § 416 . 920a(d). 

Without affording Plaintiff a third hearing, the ALJ issued a 

final decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ 

found Plaintiff's allegations of pai n to be unsubstantiated. He 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 2
completed a PRT form . The Appeals Council denied review, and the 

district court affirmed. 

To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must establish 

a physical or mental impairment expected to result in death or to 

last for a continuous period of twelve months which prevents the 

claimant from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. 42 

U.S.C. § 423(d)(l)(A). The Secretary employs the following 

five-step process to determine whether a claimant is eligible for 

disability benefits: 1) 

Does the claimant have 

Is the claimant currently working? 2) 

a severe impairment? 3) Does the 

impairment meet or equal an impairment listed in Appendix 1? 4) 

Does the impairment prevent the claimant from performing past 

relevant work? 5) Does the impairment prevent the claimant from 

performing other work? 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. The claimant has the 

burden of proving a disability that prevents him or her from 

engaging in prior work activity. Once such a showing is made, the 

burden shifts to the Secretary to show the claimant can perform 

jobs existing in the national economy. Ray v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 

222, 224 (10th Cir. 1989). 

On review, the Secretary's findings of fact are conclusive if 

supported by substantial evidence . Id. Substantial evidence is 

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

adequate to support a conclusion. Id. 

might accept as 

The ALJ found that 1) Plaintiff had 

substantial gainful activity since March 31, 

not engaged in 

1981; 2) he had 

impairments consisting of degenerative joint disease of the spine, 

degenerative changes in the hand with ade quate grip strength, 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 3
borderline intellect, and esophageal spasm with reflux; 3) these 

impairments are not listed in or medically equivalent to any 

impairments listed in Appendix 1; and 4) Plaintiff is unable to 

perform his past relevant work. At Step Five the ALJ considered 

the facts that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to 

lift and carry twenty pounds, but could not repetitively bend, 

giving him an exertional capacity for light work; Plaintiff was 

forty-nine years old; Plaintiff had completed twelfth grade and 

had a borderline intellect; and Plaintiff had no transferable 

skills. Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that the 

Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C. F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P. App. 

2, Table No. 2 (the "grids"), would direct a conclusion that 

Plaintiff was not disabled. Finally, after finding that 

Plaintiff's capacity for a full range of light work had not been 

significantly compromised by his additional nonexertional 

limitations, the ALJ used the guidelines as a framework for 

decision-making and found that Plaintiff was not disabled. 

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to give 

specific legitimate reasons why he (the ALJ) did not believe the 

opinion of treating physicians Ors. Monte R. McAlester and 

H. Rowland that Plaintiff was disabled. The Secretary is required 

to give specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of 

a claimant's treating physician and must have good cause for doing 

so. Reyes v. Bowen, 845 F . 2d 242, 244-45 (10th Cir. 1988). 

A treating physician's report may be rejected if it is brief, 

conclusory, and not supported by medical evidence. Bernal v. 

Bowen, 851 F . 2d 297, 301 (10th Cir. 1988). The ALJ stated that he 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 4
did not rely on Dr. Rowland's opinion because it was not supported 

by clinical or laboratory findings. This is a specific, 

legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Rowland's opinion, and the ALJ 

had good cause for doing so. The ALJ did not, however, state why 

he rejected Dr. McAlester's opinion. We therefore conclude that 

the matter must be remanded so Defendant can address Dr. 

McAlester's opinion. 

Plaintiff next contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find 

at Step Three that Plaintiff had a severe impairment that met or 

equaled 20 C.F . R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.0SC. This 

impairment is met where the claimant has "[a] valid verbal, 

performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or 

other mental impairment imposing additional and significant 

work-related limitation of function." Such a finding would 

establish that Plaintiff is disabled without consideration of age, 

education, and work experience. § 416 . 920(d). 

The ALJ found on the PRT form that Plaintiff's full-scale IQ 

was seventy-three. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 20. Although 

Plaintiff's full scale IQ was found to be sixty-five in a 1987 

examination, Dr. Shaw found that it was seventy-three in his 1988 

examination. Dr. Shaw's report supports the ALJ's finding that 

Plaintiff does not have the impairment listed in§ 12.0Sc. 1 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to develop 

Plaintiff's case, particularly in the area of vocational 

1 We reject Plaintiff's suggestion that a score of 

seventy-three would fit within 

plus or minus five is applied. 

indicating that such a standard 

§ 12.0SC if a standard deviation of 

There is nothing in the record 

deviation is appropriate. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 5
testimony. Before the original promulgation of the grids in 1978, 

the Secretary relied on vocational experts to meet the Step Five 

burden of proving the existence of suitable jobs in the national 

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

The grids obviate the need for such testimony by setting forth 

rules that identify whether jobs requiring specific combinations 

of residual functional capacity, age, education, and work 

experience exist in the national economy. Id. If a claimant's 

residual functional capacity, age, work experience, and education 

precisely match a grid category, automatic application of the 

grids is appropriate. Id. 

However, "the grids cannot be applied conclusively if a 

claimant has nonexertional limitations that significantly limit 

his 'ability to perform the full range of work in a particular 

[residual functional capacity]' category on a sustained basis." 

Williams v. Bowen, 844 F . 2d 748, 752 (10th Cir. 1988)(quoting 

Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1105 (10th Cir. 1985)). 

"[R]esort to the grids is particularly inappropriate when 

evaluating nonexertional limitations such as pain and mental 

impairments." Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1490 (10th Cir. 

1991)(footnote omitted). If nonexertional impairments further 

limit the range of jobs available to the claimant, then the 

Secretary must produce a vocational expert to testify that the 

claimant retains the ability to perform specific jobs which exist 

in the national economy. Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189, 192 

(4th Cir. 1983); see also Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577, 583 

(10th Cir. 1984)(per curiam). 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 6
We understand Plaintiff's argument to be that his 

nonexertional limitations of pain and mental impairments precluded 

reliance on the grids and required vocational testimony. The ALJ 

did not believe that Plaintiff's complaints of pain were supported 

by his daily activities, medications taken, medical opinions, and 

medical evidence. Subjective testimony that a claimant suffers 

pain, alone, is insufficient to establish a disability. Gossett, 

862 F.2d at 806. Objective medical evidence must establish an 

impairment that reasonably could be expected to produce pain, and 

evidence of the intensity and persistence of the pain must be 

consistent with the medical findings and signs. Id. An ALJ 

should also consider factors such as the levels of medications 

taken and their effectiveness, and the nature of a claimant's 

daily activities in evaluating the credibility of pain testimony. 

Hargis, 945 F.2d at 1489. 

We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the 

ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's complaints of pain. Dr. Strom 

stated in his June 21, 1988, report that Plaintiff has a history 

of chest pain probably due to esophageal spasm, mild to moderate 

degenerative joint disease including degenerative changes of the 

lumbosacral spine, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history 

compatible with gouty arthritis, mild retardation, and recurrent 

hemorrhoids. He believed that Plaintiff experiences significant 

discomfort due to the degenerative changes of the lumbosacral 

spine. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 214 . Plaintiff testified that 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 7
he takes 3200 milligrams of Motrin2 a day which helps for a little 

while but "they don't last long." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 95. 

However, "[t]he mere presence of some nonexertional pain 

[does] not automatically preclude reliance on the grids." Ray, 

865 F.2d at 225. Rather, the evidence must establish that the 

pain was severe enough to limit the range of jobs available to the 

claimant. Id. at 226. 

Dr. Strom completed a Medical Assessment of Ability to Do 

Work-Related Activities (Physical) in which he concluded that 

Plaintiff "had adequate strength but changes in back reflect 

arthritic changes that would affect average individual." 

Appellant's App. Vol . II at 228. Dr. Strom believed that 

Plaintiff's lifting/carrying, standing/walking, 

abilities were affected by his impairments. 

and sitting 

He found that 

Plaintiff could lift thirty pounds occasionally, could stand or 

walk one hour total in an eight-hour day, could stand or walk one 

to two hours without interruption, and could sit eight hours total 

in an eight-hour day but only for one to two hours without 

interruption. He further found that Plaintiff's abilities to 

reach and push or pull are affected by arthritis and limited range 

of motion in the back. Id. at 228-29. We see no evidence in the 

record contradicting Dr. Strom's opinion concerning Plaintiff's 

limitations. 

2 This is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent used to 

control pain and inflammation . Thirty-two hundred milligrams is 

the maximum daily dosage. Physicians' De sk Reference (1992) at 

2351-53. 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 8
"Light work" is defined as lifting no more than twenty pounds 

at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up 

to ten pounds . Even though the weight lifted may be little, a job 

is in the light work category if it requires a good deal of 

walking or standing, or sitting most of the time with some pushing 

and pulling of arm or leg controls. "To be considered capable of 

performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the 

ability to do substantially all of these activities." 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.967(b) . 

Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's conclusion 

that Plaintiff has the ability to do substantially all of the 

activities listed for "light work." In Dr. Strom's opinion, 

Plaintiff can stand or walk only one hour total in an eight-hour 

day, and his ability to sit is affected, as is his ability to 

reach, push, and pull. The case therefore must be remanded so the 

Secretary can produce vocational testimony or other similar 

evidence to show Plaintiff can perform jobs available in the 

national economy. 

The ALJ did not believe that Plaintiff had a nonexertional 

mental impairment that significantly compromised his capacity for 

a full range of light work. Even if a claimant has a severe 

mental impairment that does not meet a listing in Appendix 1, the 

Secretary still must do a residual functional capacity assessment. 

§ 416.920a(c)(3). 

Dr. Shaw completed a Medical Assessment of Ability 

Work-Related Activities (Mental) form in which he 

Plaintiff's ability to understand, remember, and carry out 

9 

to Do 

ranked 

simple 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 9
job instructions as unlimited or very good; ability to follow work 

rules, maintain personal appearance, behave in an emotionally 

stable manner, and relate predictably in social situations as 

good; and ability to relate to coworkers, deal with the public, 

use judgment, interact with supervisors, function independently, 

demonstrate reliability, and maintain attention/concentration as 

fair. However, he thought Plaintiff had poor or no ability to 

deal with work stresses. He stated that "[d]ue to physical 

limitations, Mr. Hammon's endurance for stressful situations would 

be poor." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 209-10. We find no 

evidence in the record contradicting Dr. Shaw's assessment of 

Plaintiff's inability to deal with stressful work situations. 

It is self-evident that an individual with poor or no ability 

to deal with work stress lacks the capacity to perform a full 

range of light work. We therefore remand so the ALJ can give full 

consideration to all relevant facts including expert vocational 

testimony, if necessary, to determine whether Plaintiff retains 

the ability to perform specific jobs which exist in the national 

economy. Plaintiff shall be afforded an evidentiary hearing on 

remand. 3 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the cause is 

3 In light of our disposition, we do not address Plaintiff's 

arguments that the second hearing was too short or that he was 

entitled to a third hearing or an opportunity to comment on the 

issues to be decided by the ALJ on remand. However, we agree that 

the ALJ should have afforded Plaintiff an opportunity, at a 

hearing or otherwise, to comment upon the matters the ALJ was 

required to consider on remand . 

10 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 10
REMANDED to the district court to remand the case to the Secretary 

for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

John L. Kane, Jr. 

Senior District Judge 

11 

Appellate Case: 91-7073 Document: 010110240396 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 11