Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02113/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02113-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

rtr: 11'( LI ·!IQO Q , • .,-\ ::t. ..._.., 

KATHLEEN A. POTTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendant- Appellee . 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-2113 

) (D.C. No. 86-1383M) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* -

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Claimant-appellant Kathleen A. Potter appeals from an order 

of the district court affirming the Secretary of Health & Human 

* 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: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 1
Service's decision denying her application for disability benefits 

under Title II of the Social Security Act. 1 We affirm. 

Potter submitted an application for benefits on May 20, 1985, 

alleging she had been disabled since October 15, 1980, as a result 

of symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis (MS). Based on her 

work history, she has met the earnings requirements of the Act 2 

only through December 31, 1981. Therefore, in order to receive 

benefits, she must show she was disabled prior to that date. 

Potter's application was denied at all levels of the 

administrative process. She requested and received a hearing 

before an Administrative Law Judge who ruled she was not disabled 

prior to the expiration of her insured status under to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(l)(A) (1962), and who subsequently denied her application 

for benefits. This denial was adopted as the final decision of 

the Secretary and was upheld by the district court. On appeal, 

Potter asserts that the Secretary's decision (1) was not supported 

by substantial evidence, and (2) is invalid because the A.L.J. 

applied incorrect legal standards to her claim. We disagree. 

The claimant is currently thirty-eight years old and has a 

high school diploma in addition to two years of college and one 

year of medical assistant training. Her relevant job history 

includes working as a lab technician, bookkeeper, and bakery 

clerk. She has not been employed since 1977, when she left her 

bookkeeping/lab technician job to care for her two children full 

time. 

1 

2 

Although Potter asserts that symptoms of MS rendered her 

42 u.s.c. §§ 406-33 (1982). 

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.130 (1986). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 2
disabled in 1980, the disease was not officially diagnosed until 

1985. 

At the administrative hearing, Potter testified that in 

October of 1980 she began to experience painful numbness and 

tingling in her hands and feet. She also had trouble sleeping and 

had difficulty dressing herself. She testified that she had to 

give up needlepoint and was dropping things and occasionally 

falling. At the request of her physician Dr. Palazola, she was 

examined by Dr. Bettinger, a neurologist, in May 1981. The doctor 

reported: 

On exam today, aside from the very slender build, the 

only positive finding was some definite and sustained 

fine nystagrnus of both eyes, on gaze in all directions, 

but particularly on horizontal gaze. I think this 

clearly is associated with a subjective feeling of 

impaired balance .... 

That she has a neurological dysfunction, possibly of a 

dernyelinating type, is quite definite. 

Rec., vol. II, at 134 (emphasis added). Dr. Palazola, who conducted extensive testing, later described Potter's problems as 

"intermittent episodes of numbness and tingling in her fingers and 

feet." Id. at 112. These two reports constitute the only 

clinical findings submitted in the record for the period from 

October 1980 through December 1981. 

In 1983, Potter underwent a hysterectomy. At that time, 

doctors found her strength was equal in both extremities. Apart 

from the pain necessitating the surgery, no other problems were 

noted in the preoperative report. Potter asserts that the 

symptoms she experienced in 1980-81 stern from the later-diagnosed 

MS and therefore qualify her as a disabled person. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 3
Substantial evidence is defined as "sufficient relevant 

evidence in the record that a reasonable person might deem 

adequate to support the ultimate conclusion." Bernal v. Bowen, 

851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). In reviewing the Secretary's 

findings, we consider the entire record. Williams v. Bowen, 844 

F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). Potter asserts that three 

physicians' retrospective diagnoses of MS constitute substantial 

evidence of disability . In support, she relies on the reports of 

Drs. Rosenberg, Palazola, and Kunkel. Each of these physicians 

related the symptoms experienced in 1980-81 to MS. 

Following Potter's application for benefits, Dr. Palazola 

submitted a supplemental report at the request of counsel stating, 

"[i]t is certainly conceivable from reviewing Mrs. Kathleen 

Potter's medical records, that some of her symptoms could, indeed, 

have been consistent with multiple sclerosis as far back as 1980." 

Rec., vol. II, at 139. Likewise, Dr. Rosenberg, who saw Potter 

once in November 1985, concluded, "[i]t was my impression that she 

had multiple sclerosis which probably began at age 30." Id. at 

141. Finally, Dr. Kunkel, Potter's current treating physician, 

identified the numbness and tingling from 1980-81 as relating to 

the later diagnosis of MS. Id. at 135. While there is no doubt 

Potter is disabled today, these comments, without more, do not 

support a finding that she was continuously disabled for twelve 

months in 1980-81. 

None of these reports identify a disability as of 1981. 

Rather, they retrospectively diagnose the disease. It is true 

that a treating physician may provide a retrospective diagnosis of 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 4
a claimant's condition. Millner v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 243, 246 

(4th Cir. 1984); Dousewicz v. Harns, 646 F.2d 771, 774 (2d Cir. 

1981). However, the relevant analysis is whether the claimant was 

actually disabled prior to the expiration of her insured status. 

Cf. Swanson v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 763 F.2d 1061, 

1065 (9th Cir. 1985). A retrospective diagnosis without evidence 

of actual disability is insufficient. This is especially true 

where the disease is progressive. Here, the medical reports from 

1980-81 do not suggest the claimant was disabled. 

There is substantial evidence in this record to support the 

Secretary's determination that Potter was not disabled prior to 

the end of 1981. The testimony Potter gave during the administrative hearing as to symptoms she experienced in 1980 is simply 

not corroborated by either the medical evidence or her own 

statements in her application for benefits. As late as May 1985, 

when she applied for benefits, Potter listed knitting as an 

activity. Rec., vol. II, at 67. She was also doing light 

cleaning, grocery shopping, and family laundry at that time. Id. 

This was more than three years after she alleges she became 

disabled and contradicts statements she made at the hearing. Dr. 

Kunkel stated in his May 1985 report that she did not begin having 

vision problems until late 1984. Id. at 104. Further, with the 

exception of a few weeks when her mother helped out, Potter had 

full-time responsibility for household and parenting duties 

between October 1980 and December 31, 1981. There are no medical 

reports in the record alleging any problems between May 1981 and 

late 1984. Moreover, the claimant readily admits she did not 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 5
• 

leave employment as a result of any health-related impairment, and 

no physician has stated it was necessary to do so. See Gayton v. 

Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 691 F. Supp. 22, 24 (N.D. Ohio 

1988) (in denying benefits, it is significant that no treating 

physician said plaintiff was disabled during relevant period). 

All of these factors support the Secretary's conclusion that 

Potter was not disabled during the relevant time period. 

We now turn to Potter's second argument asserting the failure 

to apply proper legal standards. The Secretary correctly relied 

on the five-step procedure outlined in the regulations accompanying the Social Security Act to determine that prior to 

December 31, 1981, Potter could have returned to work as a 

bookkeeper as the position is described in the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles, Part B, Codes 210.382-014 through 026. 3 He 

concluded that Potter could perform sedentary work and therefore 

was not disabled prior to the expiration of her insured status. 

At this stage, the burden of proof was on the claimant to show she . 

could not return to her past work. Williams, 844 F.2d at 751. 

Based on the record, we agree with the Secretary that Potter 

failed to sustain her burden. Therefore, we uphold the 

Secretary's decision as affirmed by the lower court. 

3 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (recognizing administrative notice 

of this job data); see also Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 710 

(10th Cir. 1989)(outlin1ng five-step procedure). 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 6
The decision of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-2113 Document: 01019969802 Date Filed: 05/04/1990 Page: 7