Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04002/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otis R. Bowen
Appellee
Boyd L. Sorenson
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

~OYD L. SORENSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrn: i: 

NOV ... 1 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-4002 

OTIS R. BOWEN, M.D. ,t Secretary of 

Health an~ Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 87-C-0121S) 

Clella Lawrence, Provo, Utah (Michael E. Bulson, Ogden, Utah, with 

her on the brief), of Utah Legal Services, Inc., for PlaintiffAppellant. 

Deana Rosemarie Ertl-Lombardi, Assistant Regional Counsel, 

Department of Health and Human Services, Denver, Colorado, (Dee V. 

Benson, United States Attorney, Richard D. Parry, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, [Ronald S. Luedemann, Chief 

Counsel, Thomas A. Nelson, Jr., Deputy Chief Counsel, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Denver, Colorado, of Counsel] with 

her on the brief) for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before LOGAN, SETH, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

This matter comes to us on appeal from the district court, 

which affirmed denial of Boyd L. Sorenson's application for social 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 1 
security benefits. Sorenson v. Bowen, 709 F. Supp. 1045 (D. Utah 

1988) •... The issue on appeal is whether the appeals council's 

decision was supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that 

it was not and reverse with instructions to award benefits to 

Sorenson as of the date of the commencement of his disability. 

At the time Sorenson applied for benefits, he was .forty-three 

years old and had worked for nearly twenty years as a drywall 

finisher. He had a documented medical history of gradually more 

debilitating asthma, interstitial fibrosis, chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, and emphysema. Starting November 1, 1984, he 

was unable to continue work as a drywaller because of the severity 

of his respiratory problems. He is also completely illiterate and 

is mildly retarded. 

Sorenson applied for social security disability income 

benefits in January, 1985, under Title II, the disability 

insurance provisions of the Social Security Act, 

42 u.s.c. §§ 401-33 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986), and Title XVI, the 

supplemental security income program, 42 u.s.c. §§ 1381-83c (1982 

& Supp. IV 1986). His application was denied, as was his request 

for reconsideration. After obtaining legal assistance, he 

requested and received a hearing before an administrative law 

judge (A~J), held May 15, 1986. To support his application, he 

submitted the opinion of his treating physician that he is 

completely disabled. The treating physician stated that Sorenson 

has severe exertional impairments, created by his respiratory 

problems, as well as nonexertional impairments. He stated that 

Sorenson is incapable of working around dust, fumes, smoke, and 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 2 
variations in temperature. 

intellectual functioning, 

He also noted Sorenson's level of 

another nonexertional impairment. 

Sorenson's treating physician's opinion was supported by ten years 

of observation as Sorenson's personal physician, as well as blood 

gas studies and exertional (pulmonary function) studies which 

showed a one-minute forced expiratory value (FEV or FEV1) of 1.95 

liters before use of his bronchodilator (53% of normal capacity), 

and 2.21 liters after its use (61% of normal). A second pulmonary 

function test conducted a month later yielded an FEV of 1.279 (34% 

of normal) and a maximum voluntary ventilation in liters per 

minute (MVV) of 37 before bronchodilator use, and an FEV of 1.961 

(53% of normal), with an MVV of 57 after such use. 1 The 

1 Sorenson argues that he should have been granted disability 

benefits based solely on his respiratory impairment. See 20 

C.F.R. S 404.1520(d) (1988): "If you have an impairment(s) which 

meets the duration requirement and is listed in Appendix 1 or is 

equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without 

considering your age, education, and work experience." Sorenson's 

second pre-bronchodilator score falls below the minimum levels for 

a man of Sorenson's height, 67 inches, pursuant to the table for 

chronic pulmonary insufficiency, 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, 

app. 1, § 3.02A (1988): MVV equal to or less than 52 and FEV 

equal to or less than 1.3. His test results immediately after 

medication with the bronchodilator are slightly above the 

minimums. Subsequent tests to determine how long the medication 

was effective were not conducted. 

20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 3.00D (1988) 

provides: 

These studies should be repeated after administration of 

a nebulized bronchodilator unless the prebronchodilator values are 80 percent or more of predicted normal values 

or the use of bronchodilators is contraindicated. The 

values in tables I and II assume that the ventilatory 

function studies were not performed in the presence of 

wheezing or other evidence of bronchospasm or, if these 

were present at the time of the examination, that the 

studies were repeated after administration of a 

bronchodilator. Ventilatory function studies performed 

(Continued on next page) 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 3 
therapists conducting these tests noted that Sorenson had made a 

good .effort, and that. the tests revealed severe_ obstructive air 

flow limitations. Sorenson also submitted x-rays taken in 

January, 1985, which showed mild obstructive pulmonary disease. 

Sorenson testified in person at the hearing, corroborating his 

treating physician's opinion. 

In response to this evidence, the ALJ concluded that Sorenson 

was in the category of a "younger man," was restricted to 

sedentary work, 2 and was severely impaired, but that, because he 

had not dropped out of school until tenth grade, he was 

functionally literate. The ALJ then relied on the medicalvocational guidelines (grids). 3 Applying 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, 

(Continued from previous page) 

in the presence of bronchospasm, 

bronchodilators, cannot be found to 

level of severity in tables I and II. 

without use of 

meet the requisite 

The Secretary maintains that this regulation mandates the use of 

results under medication for the purpose of establishing or ruling 

out a qualifying impairment. Because of our holding that Sorenson 

is disabled under 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, table 1, 

rule 201.17 (1988), we do not address the issue of whether or not 

the requisite level of disability from respiratory impairments for 

per seaward of benefits must be measured by performance after 

pharmacological enhancement. 

2 

3 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (1988) defines sedentary work as, 

lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and 

occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket 

files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary 

job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain 

amount of walking and standing is often necessary in 

carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking 

and standing are required occasionally and other 

sedentary criteria are met. 

[The grids] relate a claimant's age, educational 

background, and work experience to ability to engage in 

work in the national economy at various levels of 

(Continued on next page) 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 4 
subpt. P, app. 2, table 1, rule 201.19 (1988), the ALJ arrived at 

the .conclusion that-Sorenson is not disabled and therefore is not 

entitled to benefits. In summary, the ALJ found that Sorenson is 

severely restricted physically and assumed Sorenson to be 

literate. Under the regulations, with this combination, Sorenson 

could retrain to work in a sedentary job. 

The ALJ filed his conclusion on June 10, 1986. Less than 

thirty days later, on July 9, 1986, Sorenson requested appeals 

council review of the determination. Sorenson complained that the 

ALJ should have applied table 1, rule 201.17 of the grids because 

Sorenson is not only physically disabled, he is also illiterate. 

Sorenson contested the ALJ's conclusion that completion of ninth 

grade is proof of literacy. Sorenson submitted a psychological 

report which indicated that his intelligence quotient is 

seventy-three and his memory quotient is sixty-five, as well as an 

affidavit describing the policies and practices of automatic 

student promotion in the school district Sorenson attended. The 

psychologist who examined Sorenson confirmed that he is completely 

illiterate. 

On Septembers, 1986, eighty-five days after the ALJ decision 

was filed, the appeals council notified Sorenson that it would 

(Continued from previous page) exertion (sedentary, light, medium, heavy and very 

heavy). If the Secretary can determine that an 

individual claimant precisely fits on the grids, the 

Secretary can use the grids to decide whether the 

claimant is able to do other work and is therefore not 

disabled. 

Talbot v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 1456, 1460 (10th Cir. 1987). 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 5 
review the ALJ decision. In the notice, the appeals council 

conceded that.Sorenson -is illiterate, but also .. notified Sorenson 

of its intent to reverse the ALJ's finding that Sorenson is 

restricted to sedentary level work. The appeals council stated 

that its review of the evidence convinced it that Sorenson is 

capable of medium work. 4 The appeals council relied on residual 

functional capacity (RFC) 5 assessment forms by which two reviewing 

physicians interpreted Sorenson's respiratory test results, 

without the benefit of examining Sorenson. Both reviewing 

physicians checked the boxes on the form to indicate that Sorenson 

is capable of performing medium work. 6 Under table 3, rule 203.25 

of the grids, although a younger individual is illiterate, if he 

or she is capable of medium work, that person is not considered 

disabled and is not eligible for benefits. Sorenson was given 

twenty days to supplement the record with additional evidence. 

4 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c) (1988) defines medium work as, 

"lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or 

carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds." 

5 Residual functional capacity is defined as "the maximum 

degree to which the individual retains the capacity for sustained 

performance of the physical-mental requirements of jobs." 20 

C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(c) (emphasis added). 

6 The reviewing physicians' responses on these forms reported 

that Sorenson could lift and carry fifty pounds, stand and walk 

for six hours of an eight-hour work day, sit a total of six hours 

in an eight-hour work day, and push or pull an unlimited amount. 

They stated that he had environmental limitations. Unfortunately, 

those limitations are written, not just checked off on the form, 

and they are nearly illegible. They seem to state: "avoid 

pulmonary irritants." Both of the reviewing physicians' 

signatures are also illegible, and so it is impossible for anyone 

to determine whether they were qualified to review respiratory 

functioning test results. Record, v. II at 73-74, 94-95. 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 6 
His attorney responded by letter with a recapitulation of the 

- evidence _ which had been . submitted previously. On December 15, 

1986, the appeals council issued its decision. As foreshadowed by 

its September letter, it found that Sorenson, although illiterate, 

was physically capable of medium work, and therefore denied him 

benefits. The appeals council relied on the two reviewin_g 

physicians' RFC forms and the post-bronchodilator test results. 

The appeals council expressed confidence in this evidence, stating 

that respiratory functioning was readily susceptible to mechanical 

application of test results to residual functional capacity. It 

challenged the credibility of the treating physician's opinion, as 

well as its underlying evidentiary support. It ignored Sorenson's 

testimony at the ALJ hearing, as well as the implication of the 

ALJ's acceptance of the credibility of that testimony. 

Sorenson appealed the appeals council's decision to the 

district court, noting that the appeals council was time-barred 

from expanding the scope of review beyond the issue of Sorenson's 

literacy, and that the council improperly weighted the opinion of 

the reviewing physicians, who had never examined Sorenson, over 

that of the treating physician, even though Sorenson's treating 

physician's opinion was supported by clinical evidence and a 

decade of personal observation and examinations and was 

corroborated by Sorenson's testimony at the ALJ hearing. 

The· case 

recommendation. 

was 

The 

referred to a magistrate 

magistrate recommended 

7 

for a report and 

reversal of the 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 7 
appeals council's decision denying benefits, based on Sorenson's 

.argument -that. -appeals - council .. review of Sorenson's residual 

functional capacity was time-barred. 

However, on de novo review the district court affirmed the 

appeals council. The district court recognized that the ALJ would 

have found. Sorenson disabled had it found him to be illiterate. 

Therefore, it reviewed the appeals council decision as a reversal 

of the ALJ decision, mandating heightened scrutiny under Fierro v. 

Bowen, 798 F.2d 1351 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945 

(1987). Sorenson, 709 F. Supp. at 1049. Under this standard of 

review, the district court found· that Sorenson's treating 

physician's testimony was overcome by the reviewing physicians' 

evaluations, under the reasoning of Garrison v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 

710, 713-14, 715 (7th Cir. 1985)(pulmonary function tests' results 

can be stated in precise terms and can be analyzed by physicians 

with experience in reading such results with more reliable 

conclusions than those of a general practitioner/treating 

physician). Sorenson, 709 F. Supp. at 1049-50. The Sorenson 

district court went on to criticize the opinion of Sorenson's 

treating physician as mere general observations supported by 

insufficient clinical evidence. Id. at 1050. 

to this court. 

Sorenson appealed 

The Tenth Circuit has had many opportunities to review the 

basic structure of the social security administration's evaluation 

of an application for benefits. For example, 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 8 
The Secretary uses a five-step process to evaluate 

disability claims for supplemental security income. 20 

C.F.R. S 416.920 .• If the Secretary finds that a person 

is disabled or not disabled at any point, the review 

ends. Briefly, the five steps are as follows: (1) A 

person who is working is not disabled. (2) A person who 

does . not have an impairment or combination of 

impairments severe enough to limit the ability to do 

basic work activities is not disabled. (3) A person 

whose impairment meets or equals one of the impairments 

listed in the regulations is conclusively pres.urned to be 

disabled. (4) A person who is able to perform work she 

has done in the past is not disabled. (5) A person 

whose impairment precludes performance of past work is 

disabled unless the Secretary demonstrates that the 

person can perform other work. Factors to be considered 

are age, education, past work experience, and residual 

functional capacity. The Secretary may, in appropriate 

circumstances, use the Medical Vocational Guidelines 

(Grids) to determine whether other work exists that a 

claimant could perform. 

Reyes v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 242, 243 (10th Cir. 1988)(citing Bowen v. 

Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); other citations omitted). 

The shifting burden of proof in such cases is described in 

Ray v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 222, 224 (10th Cir. 1989): 

In a social security hearing such as this one, the 

claimant bears the burden of proving a disability, as 

defined by the Social Security Act, that prevents him 

from engaging in his prior work activity. Once the 

claimant has established a disability, the burden shifts 

to the Secretary to show that the claimant retains the 

ability to do other work activity and that jobs the 

claimant could perform exist in the national economy. 

The Secretary meets this burden if the decision is 

supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial 

evidence" requires "more than a scintilla, but less than 

a preponderance," and is satisfied by "such evidence 

that a reasonable mind might accept to suppbrt the 

bonclusion." The determination of whether substantial 

evidence supports the Secretary's decision is not simply 

a "quantitative exercise," for evidence is not 

substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence or if 

it really constitutes mere conclusion. 

(citations omitted). Substantial evidence "means such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 9 
a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 

( 1971) .( quoting Consolidated Edison. Co. v. National Labor Relations 

Bd., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 

1453 (10th Cir. 1989); Jozefowicz v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1352, 1357 

(10th Cir. 1987); see generally Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 

804-05 (10th Cir. 1988); Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

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." Cagle v. Califano, 638 F.2d 219, 220 (10th Cir. 

1981)(citations omitted); see also Jordan v. Heckler, 835 F.2d 

1314, 1316 (10th Cir. 1987). However, the district court was 

correct in utilizing a heightened scrutiny standard. 

[W]here the Secretary, acting through the Appeals 

Council, overturns a decision of the ALJ granting 

benefits, and, in so doing, differs with the ALJ's 

assessment of witness credibility, the Secretary should 

fully articulate his reasons for so doing, and then, 

with heightened scrutiny, we must decide whether such 

reasons find support in the record. 

Fierro, 798 F.2d at 1355; see also Williams, 844 F.2d at 754. The 

ALJ would have granted benefits had he found Sorenson illiterate. 

The appeals council conceded him to be illiterate. The appeals 

council then rejected Sorenson's testimony, as well as the opinion 

of his treating physician, to overrule the ALJ's opinion that 

Sorenson is restricted to sedentary work. This is tantamount to 

reversal of the ALJ, and we will use the heightened scrutiny 

standard. 

10 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 10 
The district court was persuaded by the Seventh Circuit's 

opinion in Garrison, 765 F.2d 710, which urges reliance on the 

mathematical results of pulmonary function studies as interpreted 

by reviewing physicians. Sorenson, 709 Fw Supp. at 1049-50. The 

Garrison court expressed more confidence in such reviewing 

physicians' opinions than in the opinions of treating physicians. 

Garrison, 765 F.2d at 713. On this issue, the Seventh Circuit is 

not in harmony with the Tenth Circuit. 

"'[T]he Secretary must give substantial weight to the 

evidence and opinion of the claimant's treating physician, unless 

good cause is shown for rejecting it.' However, a treating 

physician's opinion may be rejected if the Secretary gives 

specific, legitimate reasons for doing so." Eggleston v. Bowen, 

851 F.2d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 1988)(citations omitted). Opinions 

of physicians 

who have treated a patient over a period of time or who 

are consulted for purposes of treatment are given 

greater weight than are reports of physicians employed 

and paid by the government for the purpose of defending 

against a disability claim. 

Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 412 (10th Cir. 1983)(quoting 

Allen v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1980)). "The reports of 

reviewing physicians are • accorded less weight than those of 

examining physicians." Talbot, 814 F.2d at 1463; see also Gatson 

v. Bowen, 838 F.2d 442, 448 (10th Cir. 1988)("suspect reliability'' 

of RFC forms when filled out without explanation of the basis for 

the conclusions and without evidence of any examination of the 

11 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 11 
( claimant); Gossett, 862 F.2d at 807 (opinions of treating 

.physicians accorded great --weight); Williams~ - 844 F.2d at 758 

(same). 

Even the Garrison court was clear as to the essential test 

for weighing the value of a treating physician's opinion. A court 

must examine whether and to what extent the opinion discusses "how 

particular medical impairments produce reductions in physical 

exertion, and how such reductions in exertion affect the ability 

to work." Garrison, 765 F.2d at 713. 

The appeals council found: 

5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to 

perform the exertional and nonexertional requirements of 

work except for heavy lifting in excess of 50 pounds, 

reading, writing and complex tasks. 

. . . . 7. The claimant has the residual functional capacity 

for a full range of medium work which does not involve 

reading, writing and complex tasks. 

. . . . 11. Based on the claimant's exertional limitations 

only, section 404.1569 and 416.969 and Rules 203.26 and 

203.27, Table No. 3 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, 

Regulations No. 4, would direct a conclusion that the 

claimant, considering his residual functional capacity, 

age, education and work experience, was not disabled. 

. . . . 12. The claimant's nonexertional limitations did not 

significantly affect her [sic] residual functional 

capacity for medium work and, therefore, considering 

that capacity within the framework of the above rules, 

the claimant is not disabled. 

Record, v. II at a. 

council stated: 

To support these findings, the appeals 

12 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 12 
This conclusion is based on pulmonary function studies 

performed on January 23, 1985 showing a FEV1 of 2.2 

(Exhibit 20), pulmonary function studies dated February 

2, 1985 showing a FEV1 of 1.9 and MVV of 57, chest 

x-rays dated January 2, 1985 showing evidence of mild 

obstructive pulmonary disease, and an exercise report 

dated February 26, 1985 showing a PACO2 of 35.7 and a 

PA02 of 71 (Exhibit 21). 

Id. at 6. The reasons the appeals council rejected Sorenson's 

treating physician's opinion were, therefore, specific. However, 

they were not legitimate, because these raw results do not 

overcome the weight of the testimony and evidence submitted on 

Sorenson's behalf. 

The appeals council ignored evidence concerning Sorenson's 

nonexertional limitations. The treating physician noted that 

Sorenson was limited to jobs in environments free of dust, fumes, 

smoke, and variations in temperature. This recommendation was 

echoed by the notes written by both reviewing physicians that 

Sorenson should avoid pulmonary irritants. "Residual functional 

capacity primarily measures a claimant's exertional capacity, or 

in simplest terms, his strength. Nonexertional limitations . . . 

may also limit an individual's capacity to work, such that he may 

not be able to perform the full range of work available within an 

RFC category." Ray, 865 F.2d at 225 (citation omitted); see 20 

C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(e) (1988); see also 

Gossett, 862 F.2d at 807; Williams, 844 F.2d at 752; Talbot, 814 

F.2d at 1460. 

13 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 13 
In addition, it is troubling that the appeals council ignored 

the ALJ' s .implication of the credibility of_ Sorenson's testimony 

that he is restricted to sedentary work. 7 "We give great 

deference to the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's credibility." 

Fowler, 876 F.2d at 1455. This first-person testimony was 

buttressed in the record before the appeals council by the 

observations of D. Logan, social security claims representative, 

dated June 4, 1985: 

Wife read forms but he signed his name ok. He hardly 

said anything throughout our time together. Wife 

answered questions, although he comprehended ok. (I 

don't consider her pushy or aggressive - its just that 

Mr. Sorenson is very helpless.) She said he's very shy. 

I would consider him dependent on his wife •••• He's 

unusually quiet. Quite thin physically. 

Record, v. II at 128. 8 

7 Sorenson testified before the ALJ that he tried to work as a 

drywaller for four days in mid-1985, but could not do the work 

physically. His lungs gave out on him and he went to bed for a 

week. Record, v. II. at 44-45. He can walk a block without 

resting. Id. at 46. He can lift fifty pounds but could only 

carry it ten feet. He gets tired after standing. Id. at 47. 

When he takes his medication, it helps "a little bit." Id. at 48. 

He was on medication when he quit working. Id. at 49.~e feels 

the need to rest after about fifteen minutes of activity. Id. at 

65. 

A statement by Sorenson to the social security administration 

in the record which was before the ALJ and the appeals council 

corroborates his testimony at the ALJ hearing: "I tire very 

easily. I feel weak, exhausted, dizzy. My lips turn white or 

gray very easily •••• I'm on 3 liters of oxygen daily. Also a 

maxi-mister. It puts a mist into the lungs. I have a standing prescription to get tetracycline when needed. I take breathine 

and quebron (?) for asthma. 2 atomizers: breath-air -- B-covin." 

Id. at 124-27 (social security claim form filled out by a claims 

representative during an interview). 

8 Twelve responses to questions posed 

were "inaudible," verifying the 

impression. Record, v. II at 45-50. 

14 

to him at the ALJ hearing 

claims representative's 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 14 
In the area of Sorenson's intellectual functional capacity, 

the examining-psychologist stated that, ."His ability level falls 

in at the lower end of the borderline intellectual category. He 

is significantly limited in his memory skills, especially in 

visual recall and in recall of multiple elements." Id. at 155. 

Th~se independent pieces of evidence all support Sorenson's 

treating physician's opinion: 

Boyd [Sorenson] is capable of sitting without shortness 

of breath, he can also stand in one spot without 

shortness of breath. Walking greater than 20 yds. 

causes pallor, cyanosis, tachycardia and severe 

shortness of breath. There's no capability for further 

lifting or bending due also to the same physical 

symptomatology. 

. . . . 

[Sorenson] physiologically appears to be 20 years older 

than his chronological age •••• He is physiologically 

uncapable [sic] of any sustained physical effort •••• 

[A]ny occupation which requires even moderate physical 

exertion will exceed his cardiopulmonary capacity, he 

will become dyspneic and increasingly pale until he 

either blacks-out or ceases to exert himself. 

. . . . 

[Sorenson] is unable to do any physical work whatever 

[. H]e can walk 40' without marked dysnea [sic] •••• 

Hospitalization has been recommended but the pat[ient] 

has no health insurance & refuses. Pat[ient] is 

essentially confined to home as he can not get away from 

his oxygen & does not have a portable oxygen unit. 

Record, v. II at 135, 175, 213. 

Sorenson's testimony that he participates in chores around 

his home and yard does not preclude a conclusion that his 

employment must be limited to sedentary activities. 

While such activities [working in the yard, 

performing a few household tasks, working on cars, 

taking occasional c~r trips] may be considered, 

15 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 15 
along with medical. 

whether a person 

benefits. they do not 

a person is able to 

activity. 

testimony, in determining 

is entitled to disability 

in themselves establish that 

engage in substantial gainful 

Talbot, 814 F.2d at 1462; ~ also Williams, 844 F.2d at 759. 

In conclusion, the grid found at 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. 

P, app. 2 rule 201.17 (1988), is applicable to Sorenson. 9 In 

finding to the contrary, the appeals council did not rely on 

substantial evidence and ignored both substantial evidence to the 

contrary and contradictory Tenth Circuit case law. 

"Outright reversal and remand for immediate award of benefits 

is appropriate when additional fact finding would serve no useful 

purpose." Williams, 844 F.2d at 760 (quoting Dollar v. Bowen, 821 

F.2d 530, 534 (10th Cir. 1987)); see also Gatson, 838 F.2d at 450. 

We conclude that the record fully supports a determination that 

Boyd Sorenson is disabled as a matter of law and is entitled to 

the social security benefits for which he applied. The judgment 

of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is 

9 See also 20 C.F.R., pt. 40~, subpt. p, app. 2, § 201.00(h) 

(1988-Y:- This regulation is part of the explanation and 

definitions section illuminating table 1, in which rule 201.17, 

the rule of the grids properly applicable to Sorenson, appears. Section 201.00(h) provides: 

[F]or such individuals [age 45-49]; (1) who are 

restricted to sedentary work, (2) who are unskilled or 

have no transferable skills, (3) who have no relevant 

past work or who can no longer perform vocationally 

relevant past work, and (4) who are either illiterate or 

unable to communicate in the English language, a finding 

of disabled is warranted. 

Sorenson is restricted to sedentary work (ALJ finding #7, Record, 

v. II at 19), he has no transferable skills (ALJ finding #10, 

Record, v. II. at 19), he can no longer perform relevant past work 

(ALJ finding #6, Record, v. II at 19), and he is illiterate 

(Record, v. II at 6, 10, 123, 124, 128, 151, 154, 155, 175). 

16 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 16 
REVERSED. This matter is remanded to the appeals council with 

direction that appropriate. benefits be awarded Sorenson as of 

November 1, 1984. 

17 

Appellate Case: 89-4002 Document: 010110063738 Date Filed: 11/01/1989 Page: 17