Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06269/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charlene Kennedy
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

PI L ·· D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSUnited Stat~ Cou.rc of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLENE KENNEDY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, Secretary ) 

of Health and Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

'f enth Cirru.it 

MAR 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6269 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-358-H) 

( W. D • Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court affirming 

a final order of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

denying disability benefits. Plaintiff Charlene Kennedy contends 

the opinions of her treating physician and vocational expert were 

not given proper consideration. Plaintiff further alleges the 

* 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: 90-6269 Document: 010110031064 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 1 
-

administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that her allegations of 

severe pain were not credible is not supported by substantial 

evidence. We affirm. 

Plaintiff suffers from diabetes mellitus, hypertension, 

bursitis, and obesity. She worked from 1973 to 1986 as a 

registered nurse. In May 1986 plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. 

Reynolds, recommended that she resign her job as a "charge" nurse 

because he believed her physical condition precluded continuation 

in that position. 

Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits on May 

22, 1986, which was denied. That decision was reversed by the 

Appeals Council and plaintiff received a second hearing. 

Following that hearing, the ALJ issued an opinion finding 

plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. The Appeals Council 

considered an additional report prepared by plaintiff's vocational 

expert, but denied her request for review of the ALJ's decision. 

That determination became the final decision of the Secretary and 

was affirmed by the district court. 

Our review is limited to a determination of whether there is 

substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary's 

decision. 42 u.s.c. § 405(g); Campbell Y.!... Bowen, 822 F.2d 1518, 

1521 (10th Cir. 1987). Evidence is not substantial if it is 

overwhelmed by other evidence or is merely conclusory. Williams 

Y.!... Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). We will not reweigh 

the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary. 

Jozefowicz Y.=... Heckler, 811 F.2d 1352, 1357 (10th Cir. 1987). 

There are, however, specific rules of law that must be followed in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6269 Document: 010110031064 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 2 
weighing particular types of evidence in disability cases and 

failure to follow these rules constitutes reversible error. Reyes 

Y...!... Bowen, 845 F.2d 242, 244 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Proper consideration was given to the opinions of plaintiff's 

treating physician. The testimony of a treating physician is 

entitled to substantial weight. Byron Y...!... Heckler, 742 F.2d 1232, 

1235 (10th Cir. 1984). The record indicates Dr. Reynolds believed 

plaintiff was unable to perform nursing care work because she 

could not be on her feet for an extended period of time or walk 

over one hundred yards without having pain. The ALJ's finding 

that plaintiff could not perform her past work as a nurse is 

consistent with this opinion. The ALJ, however, also found 

plaintiff could perform sedentary jobs and thus was not disabled. 

Dr. Reynolds did not state an opinion concerning whether plaintiff 

could perform such jobs. The ALJ's conclusions are therefore 

consistent with the opinions of plaintiff's treating physician. 

These conclusions are also in harmony with the opinions of Dr. 

Freede, Dr. Mehta, and Dr. Robinson, none of whom addressed 

whether plaintiff was able to perform sedentary jobs. 

Plaintiff also asserts the ALJ erred in failing to properly 

consider the observations of the claims representative. Because 

these observations were not made by a medical expert or based on 

objective medical findings, they should not have been considered. 

See Gossett Y...!... Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 806 (10th Cir. 1988). We also 

disagree with plaintiff's contention that the ALJ improperly 

considered the opinion of a medical advisor. There is no 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6269 Document: 010110031064 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 3 
indication in the record the ALJ gave the advisor's report undue 

weight in reaching his conclusion. 

We also conclude the vocational report of Dr. Bartlow was 

given proper consideration. Dr. Bartlow indicated plaintiff could 

not perform sedentary work because of vision problems and 

disabling mental health problems. This opinion, however, was 

based on the observations of plaintiff's vocational expert rather 

than medical evidence. The medical evidence contained in the 

record, in fact, contradicts Dr. Bartlow's conclusion. The 

Appeals Council did not err in refusing to accept this opinion. 

Finally, we hold the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's 

allegations of disabling pain were not credible is supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. If the objective medical 

evidence indicates the claimant suffers from a pain-causing 

impairment, the ALJ must then evaluate all the evidence, including 

plaintiff's allegations concerning the severity of the pain and 

the relevant medical information, to determine whether the 

claimant's pain is so severe as to be disabling. See 42 u.s.c. 

§ 423(d)(S)(A); Luna Y.!.. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161, 165 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Based on our review of the record, we find the ALJ's conclusion 

that plaintiff's pain was not disabling is supported by 

substantial evidence. AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6269 Document: 010110031064 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 4