Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07082/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

' 

• 

I 

FILED __ J taited States ~rt C!f Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAmS· Tenth Orcutt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LLOYD W. HORRELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-7082 

) (D.C. No. 88-520-C) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

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: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 1 
I 

Claimant appeals from an order of the district court 

affirming the decision of the Secretary denying claimant's 

application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of 

the Social Security Act, 42 u.s.c. S 423(a)(l). Claimant filed 

his application on November 5, 1986, alleging he was disabled as 

of December 30, 1983, due to high blood pressure, degenerative 

disc disease, and severe bronchitis. Claimant's application was 

denied administratively and on rehearing. He requested and was 

granted a de nova hearing before an administrative law judge 

(ALJ). Both the claimant and a vocational expert testified at the 

hearing, which was held on June 30, 1987. The ALJ issued his 

decision denying benefits on October 13, 1987. The ALJ found that 

claimant was unable to perform his past relevant work as that work 

was described by claimant, but that he retained the residual 

functional capacity (RFC) to perform medium work and, therefore, 

was not disabled. 

Claimant requested review of the ALJ's decision by the 

Appeals Council, which entered a decision on July 14, 1988, 

correcting the ALJ's findings regarding treatment for claimant's 

back pain and concluding that claimant could return to his past 

relevant work as that work is generally performed in the national 

economy. The Appeals Council concluded that claimant was not 

disabled. Claimant then sought review of this final decision of 

the Secretary by the district court. The district court affirmed 

the decision1 and this appeal followed. 

1 The district court erroneously stated in its order that the 

decision of the ALJ finding claimant able to perform medium work 

was the final decision of the Secretary. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 2 
I 

We must uphold the Secretary's decision if i.t is supported by 

substantial evidence and if the correct legal standards were 

applied. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1987). The 

sole issue on appeal is whether the record contains substantial 

evidence to support the Secretary's decision that claimant is 

capable of performing his past relevant work. "Our review in 

substantial-evidence cases calls for careful scrutiny of the 

entire record." Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 703, 705 (D.C. Cir. 

1986). Based upon our review, we conclude that the record does 

not contain substantial evidence· to support the Secretary's 

decision and, therefore, we reverse and remand. 

The record shows that from 1963 until 1971, claimant worked 

as a chemical applicator for the City of Palm Beach Gardens, 

Florida, and that from 1972 until December, 30, 1983, claimant 

worked as a lieutenant fireman for the Old Dixie Fire Control Tax 

District No. 2, in Florida. Claimant bears the burden of proving 

he cannot return to his past relevant work. Villa v. Heckler, 797 

F.2d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1986). Claimant must establish his 

inability to perform the type of work he did in the past, not just 

his specific job. See Tillery v. Schweiker, 713 F.2d 601, 602 

(10th Cir. 1983); DeLoatche v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 148, 151 (4th 

Cir. 1983); Social Security Ruling 82-61. 2 

2 Social Security Ruling 82-61 provides in pertinent part: 

[A] claimant will be found to be "not disabled" when it 

is determined that he or she retains the RFC to perform: 

1. The actual functional demands and job duties 

of a particular past relevant job; or 

{continued on next page) 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 3 
, In determining that claimant could not perform his past 

relevant work, the ALJ focused on claimant's specific job, i.e., 

claimant's "past relevant work as that work has been described by 

the claimant." Rec. Vol. II at 18. The Appeals Council, on the 

other hand, focused on "the occupation of fire lieutenant, as it 

is performed in the national economy." Id. at 6. To determine 

whether claimant could perform the job of fire lieutenant as it is 

performed in the national economy, the Appeals Council used the 

Employment & Training Admin., U.S. Dep't of Labor, Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles (4th ed. 1977). 

The Secretary may rely on the general job categories of 

the Dictionary, with its supplementary Selected 

Characteristics,[3] as presumptively applicable to a 

claimant's prior work. The claimant, however, may 

overcome the presumption that the Dictionary's entry for 

a given job title applies to him by demonstrating that 

the duties in his particular line of work were not those 

envisaged by the drafters of the category. Similarly, a 

claimant is not foreclosed from undertaking the 

burdensome task of demonstrating that the Selected 

Characteristics inaccurately evaluates the exertional 

demands of a job title that does not apply. 

Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d at 798 (citations omitted). 

"In determining whether an applicant can perform his former 

work, the Secretary compares his physical and mental capabilities 

('residual functional capacity') with the physical and mental 

demands of his past jobs." Valencia v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 1082, 

1085 (9th Cir. 1985). In the vocational report, claimant 

(continued from previous page) 

2. The functional demands and job duties of the 

occupation as generally required by employers throughout 

the national economy. 

3 Employment & Training Admin., U.S. Dep't of Labor, Selected 

Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles (1981). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 4 
described his duties as a fire lieutenant as follows: "Supervisor 

of fire station. I supervised 13-14 people. I had engine crew, 

paramedic crew, brush fire crew. I completed run reports, 

accident reports, kept time & attendance. Supervision of fire 

suppression activity. I used typewriter, telephone, 2 way radio. 

Responsible for all on the job training of employees." Rec. Vol. 

II at 61. At the hearing before the ALJ, claimant described his 

duties as follows: 

Well, I was a--a line officer Lieutenant. I was in 

charge of the fire station head and the engine company, 

brush fire company, A-L-S, advanced life support brig. 

Fires, I was in charge of the actual fire-fighting going 

in with the hose teams and overhaul [sic] inspection. 

Brush fires, I was usually in charge of brush fire 

fighting activities and also, in charge of the advanced 

life support. 

Id. at 29. 

The Appeals Council determined that claimant's job as fire 

lieutenant was most like that called "fire captain" in the 

Dictionary. The description of fire captain is as follows: 

Supervises and coordinates activities of company of 

FIRE FIGHTERS (any ind.) assigned to specific firehouse: 

Inspects station house, buildings, grounds, and 

facilities, and examines firetrucks and equipment, such 

as ladders and hoses, to insure compliance with 

departmental maintenance standards. Responds to fire 

alarms and determines from observation nature and extent 

of fire, condition of building, danger to adjacent 

buildings, and source of water supply, and directs 

firefighting crews accordingly. Trains subordinates in 

the use of equipment and methods of extinguishing all 

types of fires. Evaluates efficiency of personnel. 

Inspects commercial establishments in assigned district 

and reports fire hazards or safety violations to FIRE 

INSPECTOR (gov. ser.). Compiles report of each fire 

call, listing location, type, probable cause, estimated 

damage, and disposition. May respond to emergency calls 

to render first aid. May recommend corrective measures 

for fire hazards or safety violations to building 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 5 
owners. May conduct fire drills for occupants of 

buildings. May supervise and coordinate activities of 

fire companies fighting multiple alarm fire until 

relieved by supervisors. May write and submit proposal 

for new equipment or modification of existing equipment 

to superiors. May be designated as FIRE LIEUTENANT 

(gov. ser.) in larger organizations. May be designated 

according to specialty such as FIRE CAPTAIN, MARINE 

(gov. ser.) or FIRE LIEUTENANT, MARINE (gov. ser.). 

Dictionary, 373.134-010 FIRE CAPTAIN (gov. ser.). 

Claimant contends that the Secretary's decision that he can 

perform the job of fire lieutenant as that job is described in the 

Dictionary is not supported by substantial evidence because 

claimant is either incapable of performing or has never performed 

many of the required duties listed in the Dictionary. Since we 

agree that claimant's impairments prevent him from performing the 

full range of duties described in the Dictionary, we need not 

address whether claimant has the requisite knowledge and skills to 

perform those duties he contends he has not performed previously. 

The vocational expert testified about the physical and mental 

demands of the job of fire lieutenant at the hearing before the 

ALJ. Her testimony tracked the description for fire captain found 

in Selected Characteristics. In the latter, the occupation of 

fire captain is in the category of safety and law enforcement. 

The skills and abilities required for jobs in this category 

include: "Knowledge of laws, regulations, and safety rules; •.• 

organizing, planning, and directing work of others; ••• working 

under pressure or extreme circumstances; using weapons, 

fire-fighting and other equipment and safety devices skillfully; 

and keeping in good physical shape." Id. at 37. 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 6 
' The occupation of fire captain is classified as medium work, 

id., which requires "[l]ifting 50 lbs. maximum with frequent 

lifting and/or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 lbs." 4 Id. 

at 465. 

capabilities: 

The job 

climbing 

also 

and/or 

requires the 

balancing; 5 

following 

stooping, 

physical 1 

kneeling, 

crouching, and/or crawling; reaching, handling, fingering and/or 

feeling; talking and/or hearing; and seeing. Id. at 37, 466. 

Finally, the occupation of fire captain is categorized as both an 

inside and an outside job, which is performed under the following 

environmental conditions: extremes of heat plus temperature 

changes; wetness and humidity; noise and vibration; hazards; and 

fumes, odors, toxic conditions, dust, and poor ventilation. Id. 

at 37, 467. 

The record shows that claimant has a chronic obstructive and 

restrictive pulmonary disease accompanied by frequent coughing and 

shortness of breath on exertion. In addition, plaintiff suffers 

from degenerative arthritis in his spine. An x-ray of claimant's 

abdomen taken when claimant was hospitalized in July of 1982 for 

an exploratory laparotomy showed "[m]ild degenerative changes 

•.• present in the hips," and "some increased sclerosis6 along 

4 Claimant indicated on his vocational report that his job as 

fire lieutenant required him to lift over one hundred pounds 

maximum and to lift and/or carry over fifty pounds frequently. 

5 "Balancing" is defined as "Maintaining body equilibrium to 

prevent falling when walking, standing, crouching, or running on 

narrow, slippery, or erratically moving surfaces; or maintaining 

body equilibrium when performing gymnastic feats~" Selected 

Characteristics at 466. 

6 

an 

"Sclerosis" is defined as "l. A hardening or induration of 

organ or tissue • • • 2. Hardening within the nervous 

(continued on next page) 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 7 
the inferior margin of the right Sl joint which may be the 

beginning of ankylosis7 here." Rec. Vol. II at 115. An x-ray of 

claimant's lumbar spine taken in 1986 showed "slight disc space 

narrowing at LS, Sl and some hypertrophic changes on the 

anterior surface of L3 and L4." Id. at 173. Claimant indicated 

on his disability report that one of his treating physicians, Dr. 

Frederick Smith, also took x-rays of his back, but none are 

contained in the record. 

Claimant is morbidly obese (he is five feet nine inches tall 

and weighs 250 pounds) and suffers from hypertension that is 

poorly controlled by medication. The record contains two blood 

pressure readings from 1981 with diastolic pressure of 120 and 

eight readings from 1983 through 1987 with diastolic pressures 

ranging from 110 to 120. During much of that time claimant was 

taking a variety of medications for his high blood pressure. 

Claimant also had two episodes of syncope, one in July of 1982 and 

one in January of 1983. The first episode was accompanied by 

severe hypotension, for which claimant was hospitalized and 

underwent an exploratory laparotomy. 

Claimant was diagnosed as having angina pectoris in December 

of 1981 and received treatment at a cardiac rehabilitation center 

in December of 1981, July of 1982, and January through June of 

(continued from previous page) 

system, esp. of the brain and spinal cord, resulting from 

degeneration of nervous elements, as the myelin sheath •.•• 

3. Thickening and hardening of the layers in the wall of an 

artery." Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionar_y 1285 (14th ed. 

1981). 

7 "Ankylosis" is defined 

joint." Taber's at 89. 

as 

8 

"Immobility and fixation of a 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 8 
1983. At the time of the hearing, claimant indicated he was 

taking Nitrostat for his heart when needed. During an examination 

of claimant in 1981, Dr. Regard noted that claimant had a right 

inguinal hernia, and Dr. Kimmel diagnosed claimant as having 

bilateral inguinal herniae in December of 1983. Dr. Kimmel noted 

that the herniae might strangulate with physical activity. 

At the time of the hearing, claimant was taking Lopressor and 

Dyazide for his high blood pressure, Theo-Dur, a bronchodilator, 

for his pulmonary condition, and aspirin for his back pain8 every 

day. The record showed that in 1982 and 1983 claimant was taking 

a variety of other medications, including Corgard, Minipress, 

Enduron, and Aldomet for his high blood pressure, and Tranxene for 

anxiety and stress. 

In his report of December 14, 1983, Dr. Frederick Smith 

recommended that claimant avoid strenuous activity and lifting and 

bending. He also opined that claimant could not perform his 

duties for the Old Dixie Fire Control Tax District. Dr. Kimmel, 

who also examined claimant in December of 1983, advised that 

claimant not engage in any strenuous activity because it would 

increase claimant's blood pressure and could cause a stroke or 

heart attack. Dr. Kimmel also reported that claimant's excessive 

weight and lack of breathing capacity made him incapable of doing 

"any physical activity of any severity." Id. at 76. Dr. Kimmel 

opined that claimant could not perform his duties for the Old 

Dixie Fire Control Tax District. 

8 Claimant testified that in 1982 and 1983 he became 

to Demerol and Percodan, so now he only takes aspirin; 

eighteen to twenty-five aspirin a day for his back pain. 

9 

addicted 

he takes 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 9 
Dr. Rice examined claimant in December of 1986 at the request 

of the Secretary. 

lumbar spine was 

He noted that claimant's range of motion in his 

limited to thirty-five degrees forward flexion 

and twenty degrees extension. In addition, claimant was "unable 

to produce hip flexion beyond 85 degrees with the knee extended 

bilaterally." Id. at 173. Claimant's back was "painful to 

palpitation over LS, 51 and slightly at L4 with mild amount of 

muscle spasm noted in this area." Id. 

Dr. Rice examined claimant again in July of 1987 at the 

request of the Florida Retirement System, from whom claimant was 

receiving disability benefits. At that examination, claimant 

exhibited a decreased range of motion in his back and shortness of 

breath. Dr. Rice recommended that claimant avoid any strenuous 

exercise or activities and noted the possibility of early 

congestive failure. He reported that claimant's morbid exogenous 

obesity restricted his motion, his degenerative disc disease 

limited his movement, and his shortness of breath limited his 

activities. Dr. Rice wrote that claimant's condition had not 

improved and opined that claimant was unable to perform his past 

duties for the Old Dixie Fire Control Tax District. 

In February of 1984, the chief of the Old Dixie Fire Control 

Tax District submitted a report to the Florida Retirement System 

concerning claimant's alleged disability. He described claimant's 

duties as entailing "[f]ighting [f]ires, pulling fire hose, 

supervision of personnel, handling ladders, climbing ladders, 

entering and contact with toxic fumes, assisting of lifting 

patients, maintenance of fire equipment and assigned station, 

10 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 10 
' 

[and] training exercises under non-fire and fire ·conditions." Id. 

at 83. In response to the questions: "Does the employee's 

alleged disability prevent the performance of any of these duties? 

If so, which ones and how does the disability affect the 

performance of them?" the chief replied: "yes. Anything 

strenuous, i.e. rolling hose, lifting patient, use of heavy fire/ 

rescue equipment, physical training exercises, fighting fires, 

climbing ladders, etc., prevented the performance of his duties." 

Id. at 84. The chief also noted that in the past twelve months 

claimant had missed 381⁄2 of the assigned 110 shifts and that 

"[b]etween 10/15/81 and January 1, 1983 he has also missed 361⁄4 of 

the 130 assigned shifts in that period. These shifts that were 

missed were also due to his rapidly diminishing health which 

resulted in his inability to perform his duties." Id. 

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that 

substantial evidence supports claimant's contention that the 

combination of his impairments prevents him from performing his 

past relevant work, either as he described that work or as it is 

described in the Dictionary and Selected Characteristics. The 

only evidence in the record to the contrary is that contained in 

the RFC assessments of claimant by Drs. Fiegel and Sadberry, 

respectively. Neither doctor examined claimant, however, and the 

assessment forms were "unaccompanied by thorough written reports 

or persuasive testimony." Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d at 515. 

Therefore, the forms do not constitute substantial evidence. Id.; 

see also Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980). 

11 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 11 
' 

... 

1 t Since the Secretary's determination that claimant can perform 

his past relevant work as a fire lieutenant is not supported by 

substantial evidence, on remand, the Secretary should determine 

whether claimant is capable of performing his past relevant work 

as a chemical applicator, and if not, the Secretary should proceed 

to step five, where he will have the burden of "demonstrat[ing] 

that the claimant is capable of performing substantial gainful 

activity." Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d at 797. Testimony from a 

vocational expert as to the type of work claimant can perform and 

the availability of such work in the national economy would be 

appropriate to assist the Secretary in his determination if he 

reaches step five in the sequential analysis. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED 

with directions to 

proceedings. 

remand to the Secretary for further 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

12 

Appellate Case: 89-7082 Document: 010110083570 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 12