Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02799/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02799-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otis R. Bowen
Appellee
James Thomas Sykes
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

AUG 9 1999 

J AMES THOMAS SYKES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs . No. 88-2799 

OTI S BOWEN, Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, 

(D.C. No. CIV-87-2246-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

Plaintiff-appellant James Sykes instituted this action in the 

district court pursuant to§ 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of 

defendant-appellee Secretary of Health and Human Services that 

Sykes was neither disabled nor entitled to disability benefits 

u nder law. In a thorough eighteen page memorandum opinion, the 

district court concluded that the administrative law judge's (ALJ) 

determination was supported by substantial evidence and should be 

a f firmed. 

* 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. 

** 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 cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 1 
On appeal, Sykes contends (1) the ALJ's finding that Sykes is 

not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the ALJ 

applied an incorrect legal standard in considering Sykes' pain, 

and (3) the ALJ improperly failed to consider Sykes' alcoholism 

and mental impairments. We have carefully reviewed the parties' 

brief and appellate record, and find these contentions to be 

without merit. We affirm the judgment of the district court for 

substantially the reasons set forth in its memorandum opinion 

attached hereto. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 2 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

- WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Fi LL: D 

OCT 1 2. ~~ ,,,-- · -- - ' ,,,-4 ··. 

RO • , ,., I 

BERT o,,_r,1:;.J~':L V ,. 

JAMES THOMAS SYKES, 

Plaintiff 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CLERK, U.S. t)(S T1 l;tr ry p:t,··,/ 

WESTERN DIS~ J:7)',l-/ 1/ / . 

BY DEPUTY ~l~,~,-c ~---l..- -·----·--

vs. CIV-87-2246-A 

OTIS R. BOWEN, Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 u .s . c. 

§405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Dei'emi .:.-inL 

Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referr ed t: ,., .:, ,:: 

the Secretary) denying his application for disability in ::; ur.:n c t: 

benefits. 42 u.s.c. §416(i); 42 U.S.C. §423. 

Plaintiff's application for disability benefits wa s t i h ·d 011 

April 10, 1986, alleging a disability since August 6, 19 84 , c..it~i- r , 

his back, left knee and hip, right shoulder and elbow, .1 11..J ., , 

hernia. (TR-57). The application was denied on iniL i .:.1 ; 

consideration and on reconsideration at the administrative 1,~v0 J. 

(TR-61, 72, 77, 79). Pursuant to the P 1 a inti ff .' s r E: q u ..:· ~; t , 

hearing de novo was held on May 6, 1987, before an Admin isLr...!ti v,: 

Law Judge (hereinafter referred to ALJ). The Plaintiff O f.Jf.w.11 c·LI 

, with legal counsel and offered his testimony during th e hc· .:..1 c i 119 . 

1 

0N -.- -, "" "' ,... .... -..., 1c- -n -- ... . , --, -· . . . .. Ii:.: Ir:, .. , t: . ... · :. : .> ; • , . .. . . • , 

c:: .. :~.: ~ .. ::.. / .. :] . ~ -:; . : : __ ·: - . 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 3 
, · 

(TR-35). On June 30, 1987, the ALJ issued his decision ti:, ,: :. 11 ,·; 

that the Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning vi Lli,: 

Social Security Act, and therefore was not entitled to di s:: i.. i 1 i t ._,, 

insurance benefits. (TR-9, 10). On October 14, 1987, the !·.j,JJ, ,.-._d:. 

Council denied the Plaintiff's request for review of th e: !·.:.J ' :: 

decision, and therefore the decision of the ALJ became th 2 r i nc:iJ. 

decision of the Defendant Secretary. (TR-3). Th e P l ,::i i n t i f r 

thereafter filed the instant action seeking judicial revi ew of t h~ 

final decision of the Defendant Secretary. 

The evidence before the ALJ established that the Pl a ~ 11 r. ~ f r7 

was 41 years old at the time of the hearing, with a datt2 oi: t .irtl1 

of September 14, 1945. 

' (TR-36). He has a high school edl! :.:1 ~- 1 0 11 

and attended two years of college. (TR-37). In add i. t i : ,n , ht· 

received training at a vocational technical school for he.:it i 11,_1 .,nd 

air conditioning work. (TR-37). The evidence concern i, ''j : rk 

P 1 a i n t i f f ' s pa s t r e 1 e van t w o r k h i s t o r y w a s s k e t c h y , b ~1 ;:_ :. h ,:. 

Plaintiff has worked in real estate sales and as a police o f· :. ,·r , 

deputy sheriff, heavy equipment operator, and truck driv1::r. l·; ;",:-

3 7 ) • He has also worked in the heating and air condit . . :-, ;~: n,] 

business prior to sustaining an on-the-job injury in 1984. \ ':· l<-

37, 39). The Plaintiff describes his problems as follows: 

(1) back injury {TR-40, 41, 42, 43, 52, 54); 

(2) left hip injury (TR-40, 41, 42); 

(3) left knee injury (TR-40, 42); 

(4) right shoulder problem (TR-40); 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 4 
(5) nerve damage in two fingers (TR-41); 

( 6) spas t-i--c colon and polyps removed from colon ( 'l'R- :'; : , 

49, 50); 

( 7 ) 

( 8 ) 

asthma (TR-44, 49); 

nerves (TR-44, 47); 

(9) alcoholism (TR-45-48, 55); and 

(10) hearing problems (TR-50, 51). 

The P 1 a i n t i f f testified that his problems be,:; _1 1; 1 1 1 

approximately 1966, when he began drinking heavily after r eL u : 1. .11q 

to the United States from military service in Viet Nam . ( TJ-:-.:·,J. 

In res_ponse to a question of whether or not he current l y ti ... : .: .:1·n 

alcohol problem, the Plaintiff testified that he doe s " G!. [ .ir1J 

on." (TR-45). He explained that he can sometimes maint Zi i n 1\-,i., 

weeks, a month, or a month and one-half, but that h e L:.:.l1::,c,1 

maintain any more than that. (TR-45). The longest period ut L.i. H1L· 

that the Plaintiff has remained sober since 1984 is appr oxi :: 1c..t. l: l y 

4 1 d a y s . ( TR - 4 6 ) • He u s u a 11 y s t a r t s d r i n k i n g w h e n h ,:· , 1 , · L :.: 

discouraged. (TR-48). The Plaintiff was in a Detoxifica. t i o 1, U1,it. 

at Veteran's Hospital in November, 1980, but he has not beei1 1, .• ck 

s i n c e t h e n • ( TR - 5 5 , 1 0 6 ) • A f t e r 1 e av i n g t h e De t o x u ll .: t '. i 1 , .-

Plaintiff attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for a bou t ;. u: 

months. (TR-55). He also at some point, saw a psychiatr L;, 111 

California for his drinking problems. (TR-55). In 1 98U , 111L· 

Plaintiff saw a psychiatrist that the Detox Unit at Ve tt::r.::ir, ' ~; 

Hospital had referred him to, but the record is not clea r i f tt1i~ 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 5 
is the same psychiatrist he saw in California. (TR-55). !J t: r l I: .·, 

the last year a.-- so, the Plaintiff has not sought any help J. ,.::. c" i 1 , 

drinking problem. ( TR - 5 5 , 5 6 ) • 

I n r e g a r d s t o h i s he a r i n g prob 1 em , the P 1 a i n t i f f t ._.-_: 1. : r i , -. : 

that he had his hearing tested approximately 20 years a g o ·,:: i 1 ._. : , : 

the military, and he had a hearing loss at that time. ( l: <· ·; 1; .. 

The Plaintiff has not had a hearing test since then, but 1,.:.- : ~, . ,i 

that his hearing is much worse now than it was then. ( '!·1,:-·it) . 

The Plaintiff claims he is almost deaf in his right ear .::: 1. u 1. l :,: :. 

he has a hole in his left eardrum. (TR-50). 

Reg a rd in g his II nerves II i t is u n c 1 ea r f r om t h e r e c o r .-J ., th· 11 

this problem began • The Plaintiff testified that h e L ,.: t.::l:; 

• 

uncomfortable around people and feels discouraged about h i ,11::,.- l L . 

(TR-47). 

(TR-48). 

He gets irritable and has occasional crying :~r~,-, l ~; . 

The Plaintiff did not offer any testimony conc0rni w; hi :; 

asthma condition other than to state that he is taking rned ~'--·-it ic-:1 

for asthma. ( TR-4 4, 4 9) • 

The remainder of Plaintiff's complaints appear to b e , ,:: l .1r: e,i 

to two on-the-job injuries he suffered. The first injury Gl --~·1:1 r1!,I 

i n Feb r u a r y , 19 8 1 , when he f e 11 w hi 1 e cl i m bi n g down f r om t t: -.: :..: i. d L:· 

of a truck, and pulled his shoulder joint and damaged th e 11 ,·1 ·1,:: 

in the shoulder and the elbow. (TR-40). He apparently un ci.::c .1 c 1n 

shoulder surgery at that time.- (TR-40). The Plaintiff app,,r, ·11t:.!.·,: 

also damaged the nerves in two of his fingers from that: i "I. ~, 

causing him to lose feeling in those two fingers. ( TR-41) . 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 6 
The Plaintiff then fell while working in the air condi ri 0 ,, i. n,.J 

business in August, 1984 and injured his back, left knee ar:-:: 1,·r: : 

hip. (TR-39, 40, 42). He had surgery on the knee o n -::11 , . ..1t -

patient basis. (TR-42). 

Las t 1 y , the P 1 a i n t i f f t es t i f i e d th a t he has a spas t i ,: l' : .:) 1. 

and has anywhere from two to six spontaneous bowel movement ::: ,. l ,L.'11

: 

with little advance warning. (TR-41, 43, 50). He also ha d pol·;p!~ 

removed from his colon. (TR-41). 

The Plaintiff described his average day as getting up . 1: r. l1 l· 

morning around 7:30 to 8:00, if he has gotten a good n i-~11 , 1 ,,. 

sleep. (TR-38). He has a cup of coffee and then read s u11 1. .1 l 111· 

feels uncomfortable. (TR-38). He will then walk around h i::; /,.1 c..;.i . for approximately 30 minutes, before lying down or readi rhJ :'; , im, · 

more. ( TR- 3 8) • He usually watches the news and we a U 1.:: c CJr1 

television at noon. (TR-38). If the Plaintiff feels like t l , nt:: 

will do various odd jobs around the house. ( TR- 3 8 ) . l [ \ n I;: 

weather permits, the Plaintiff likes to spend as much r. !11\t:-

outdoors in the afternoon as he can. (TR-39). Sometim1::s h ~· ,; : Ll 

go to his wife 1 s office in the afternoon and 1 have coffe e 1.:,r L ,::..i 

with her during her break. (TR-39). He has a 1 a r g e 1 aw n d 1 11 .! n t ! 

mow s it with his riding lawn mower in two to four inst.:i ll11":1il ~ . 

(TR-39, 44). He cannot mow his lawn all at one time, a s tli ::: L,.1.~~-

swells, his legs get numb, and he experiences alot of pa in. l ')'!{-

4 4 ) • He can mow roughly one hour before he experi, ·r 1, ·,· :: 

discomfort. ( TR- 4 4 , 4 5) . Plaintiff is able to dress hi111 s 1:: l r ,111d 

to take care of his personal needs. ( TR-3 8) • He drives ,I ,> , r 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 7 
some, al though when he takes medication he does not f e el lti .. L 1" · 

is a safe drive-r, as the medication makes him groggy an .J :;! .:,,.: : 

down his reactions. (TR-39). His social activities are ! i Ji , '. Ll:, : 

to c~casionally visiting with friends and family members. 

3 9) • 

l 'l' k -

The medical records available to the ALJ date from l e t ,: : ~l c.! IJ 

to approximately September 1986. The first report is a h vs ~ . c~ 1 

summary from the Veteran's Hospital dated November 17, 198 0 . :.·1·1i106). It appears from the report that the Plaintiff was <-111111 : 1 L t--1 

for alcohol dependence and complained of numbness in o ne -.:,! .. 11i :... 

fingers and pain in the scapular area. (TR-106). B e t' ,:, ,· , · r_ t1 , -

hospit::11 authorities could do a workup on the Plaintiff ' s .. : c111 .:.i 11-, 

shoulders, he checked himself out of the hospital on a P,, .. . , . ._ .....J •. J j !1 •.! 

did not return. (TR-106). The Plaintiff was in th e h e :: 1.· ! t .:i 1 

approximately one week prior to checking himself out. ( 1'1 .. : · , (i ) . 

The Veteran's Hospital diagnosed him with alcohol depe nde1 1, ·, · .:.1 n, 1 

probable right ulnar neuropathy. (TR-106). Th e ph~· :. : ;..:l l 

e xamination of the Plaintiff was essentially negative. ( 'I ,, - I U ii, 

107) . 

The next medical records available are dated December 1 ', ;J '.l . 

(TR-115, 116). Reports dated December 28, 1983, from the fV,_~!i ,· id,• 

Clinic and Dr. Joseph F. Messenbaugh III, indicate t h~,t. !. Ii ,_, 

Plaintiff related a history of falling from a truck ladder 1 11 J ul y 

1980, injuring his shoulder. (TR-115). The Plaintiff f u rll101 

gave a history of having surgery on the shoulder in Februar y l '. l Hl 

and complained of muscle spasms and numbness of his f i ng t:: r:..: .!!1u 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 8 
pain since then. ( TR-115, 116). After his examinat i o n v i. l.l1,.· 

Plaintiff, Dr. ~essenbaugh noted a full range of motio n 1 11 t: n,· 

neck and normal contour of the neck and shoulders. (TR- ll G). r:,,. 

Messenbaugh observed the surgical scar on the Plainti ff ' :: . -0 1, 1 

shoulder and concluded that the Plaintiff had a mild re s t. r !1.·~_ 1c, !1 

of motion in the right shoulder. (TR-116). The mild re~,t. !. .l.' Ll (, 1·1 

seemed to produce some · discomfort to the Plaintiff. (' !' !,: - 1 1 G) . 

The Plaintiff had tenderness over the posteromedial a s p ect :...ii th1:! 

right elbow with full range of motion in the right e lbov:, '.1l t :. i: 

and hand. (TR-116, 117). Deep tendon reflexes in t h,.: u ppc·r 

extremities were within normal limits. (TR-117). CircuL,ti,) :1 i11 

the ri~ht upper extremity was within normal limits, altho u-::! 1 1 ~1t:rl· 

wa s decreased sen~ation in two of the Plaintiff's fing ers. (TH·· 

117). The Plaintiff was· diagnosed as having status pos t !·~,. 1 <1tc,r 

cuff syndrome right, status post release coracoacromi al 1 ;,J,i111,:·r,t. 

problems and traumatic ulnar neuritis right. (TR-115, 1 17). 

Dr. Messenbaugh in a fol low-up letter dated Februar y l , J ') 8 -l , 

noted that he had reviewed the EMG report with the Pl a inL .:.LJ u 11 J 

adv i s e d the P 1 a int if f that he might benefit by a s L. r . 1 i c .:: L 

procedure on the right elbow with decompression of thi.- . .1 . n.:. ,· 

n e r v e • ( TR - 1 1 8 ·) • A c c o r d i n g t o t h e 1 e t t e r , t h e P 1 .:, i 1 1 1 i i 1 

indicated th a t he w o u 1 d th i n k about i t and g e t b a ck w i 1. 1. U-1 , · 

doctor. (TR-118). The doctor noted that he belie v,·d ch ,'. 

Plaintiff should be limited with regard to heavy lifting, O•1,.: ri10od 

work with the right extremity or repetitive flexion and e :-:LL·11.i01, 

of the right elbow. (TR-118). Further, the doctor noted th<11 cr11· 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 9 
' ' ,'-

Plaintiff should avoid pressure behind the elbow, as on "' !1.',:.:: 

surface. ( TR-1-1-8). 

The next medical reports available to the ALJ v, e r L" :: r ,_ ,r. 

February 1985 ·when the Plaintiff's worker compensation oU L•! 11,~y:: 

referred him for medical care . after an on-the-job in jur:/ l!";,: 

Plaintiff sustained in August 1984. (TR-119, 120). LJ r . I ,, . 

Patrick Evans examined the Plaintiff and noted that the PL,i1 :1: ~r~ 

gave a history of an on-the-job injury suffered on Augus t C, J•J;3 :1 , 

when he slipped while climbing down a ladder and injured h i::: 1. 11<,·,· 

.and back. (TR-120). The Plaintiff told Dr. Evans that nv r,~ •. :l 

been seen by two other doctors initially, but was advi sed ti:/ Lt1,~ 

doctor~ that nothing could be done to help his knee. ( 'l' ri -- 1 '. ' o J . 

The Plaintiff complained that he continued to experienc e 1.J-t 111 i ,1 

the knee. (TR-120). Dr. Evans performed arthoscopic s u rg,·ry .. i11>1 

diagnosed the Plaintiff with torn lateral meniscus of t ,k 1,:•tr 

knee. (TR-121). On September 17, 1985, Dr. Evans noted t 11.::!.. t h,: 

P 1 a int if f had a f u 11 range of motion of the knee , bu L ::: 1_ L J 1 

continued to complain of pain and weakness of the knee. ( 'Tl< · I :: 2 ) . 

Dr. Evans noted that the knee was stable and he rel e a ::::, ·J 1: hc· 

Plaintiff from his care. (TR-122). Dr. Evans deviated f r -,1i. 1 IH: 

Guides to Permanent Impairment of the American Medical As :_jo(: i~,1. :u11 

in rating the Plaintiff with a 20% permanent impairment o f t i 1i:.- l e(01 

for workers compensation purposes. (TR-122). 

Next, the Plaintiff saw Dr. James L. Males in Apr i l l'Ji ) G , 

complaining of asthma, knee and back injury, alcoholism ,rnd c:010 11 

disorder. (TR-123). Dr. Males' impressions were cli r c,n i c 

8 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 10 
, · 

alcoholism, multiple skeletal injuries with residual a b n01in.:,! i.1: ·/ 

of a modest de~ree, skin lesion of unknown cause, toba cco ... i :. ~.::, 

colon dysfunction, probably spastic colon, and inguinal i,c':11 i. ~1. 

(TR-124, 140) •· The Plaintiff underwent a colonoscopy 1. :1 .!,irk 

1986, at the Presbyterian Hospital and he was discha r ged -.1 ti.-: 

tolerating the procedure well. (TR-148). The lab report s sr1u·.-10J 

the sample to be benign. (TR-147). 

Dr. Neil B. Kimerer performed a consultative eva l ua t i ori 01 

the Plaintiff on September 3, 1986, at the request of th e Soci ~J 

Security Administration. ( TR-132) • A f t e r t a k i n g a n e x t .-, n : ·; i v t:· 

history from the Plaintiff, Dr. Kimerer expressed the op i n i c11 lll.J c 

the P 1 a i n t i f f ha s a n i n ad e qua t e p e r so n a 1 i t y w i t h t h e s " rn . 1 u . -L· 

complaints. (TR-136). - Dr. Kimerer further stat e d t11 .11 rk 

believed the Plaintiff had gotten used to doing nothing an.J 1ii..id L· 

little effort to do anything productive. (TR-137). He c o ri , ·lt1 .10u 

however that the Plaintiff was quite competent to manage h i ::.; . , 1,.; 11 

f unds. (TR-137). 

I n r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n o f t he S e c r e t a r y , t h i s Co u c 1. i. :":: 

limited to a determination of whether or not the decisi o n ,_,r. 1 h i~ 

Secretary is supported by substantial evidence. 

§405(g); Richardson v. Pereles, 402 U.S. 389 (1971); J o r d .. t11 ·:. 

Heckl e r, 835 F.2d 1314 (10th Cir. 1987); Brown v. Bowen, 80 1 l·' . :-'d 

361 ( 10th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence is defined as 11,• J tt: 

than a sc int il la and is such evidence as a reasonable mind 111 i •J l It 

deem adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Per t'! l e:;, -!U:! 

U.S. at 401; Brown v. Bowen, 801 F.2d at 362. To find t h .:it In(· 

9 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 11 
Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence, 1.h erc:· 

must be suffie-:ient relevant evidence in the record 1: h d t 

reasonable person might deem adequate to support th e u ~L 1!:1ctL,,· 

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

Though both the Plaintiff and Defendant can point t o S !,c-: ,_· : t i , · 

portions of the record to support their positions, this Cou .- t ;1; u ::, t 

1 o o k t o t he e n t i r e r e co r d i n de t e rm i n i n g w he the r t It , .- r ,:· t · · 

substantial evidence. Gardner v. Bishop, 362 F. 2d 917 ( 10 '- t1 ,' i c • 

1966). The Court, in reviewing the decision of the Secr eL:C '/ , L 

not to weigh the evidence nor substitute its discreti o n f e e tna L 

of the Secretary. Brown v. Bowen, 801 F.2d at 362. 

e vi den c e i s such as to pr es en t varying i n fer enc es , i n o r ci , · r t ,:-) 1. 

the Court to disturb the ALJ's findings, the Court would t, .:i v ~ t ,:. 

engage in fact finding_, which it should not do. 

Schweiker, 713 F.2d 60L (10th Cir. 1983). 

'l' L l ] I. ( · ',' \j • 

It is well settled that the Plaintiff has the bu r J ,.- 11 c :. 

proving his disability by establishing a physical o r 11 t1.:11: ~1J 

impairment lasting at least twelve months, which proh i b j 1 : : 11-t t · 

Plaintiff from engaging in any substantial gainful a c t i v : 1 y . 

Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577 (10th Cir. 1984). 

T h e r e g u l a t i o n s t ha t g u i d e d i s a b i l i t y i n s u 1 ~ i r, c ,-. 

de t e r m i n a t i on s s e t f o r t h a f i v e s t e p s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e ~ : ; 1 , j 1 

evaluating disability. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520. In this C oS<.: , l' It, · 

AL J f i r s t de t e rm i n e d th a t the Pl a i n t i f f had no t e n g c:t g ,:: d 1 11 

substantial gainful activity since August 6, 1984, the d .:.trL: 111 1· 

Plaintiff testified he last worked, so the process was con ti 1t u,:d . 

10 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 12 
Th e AL J t he n found that the P 1 a i n t i ff had an imp a i r w ,:: 1, ·~ c:. , r 

combination of ~mpairments. As required, the ALJ then c o1 ::.::1 ,;._·c ,·t1 

whether or not the impairments met or exceeded any imp .. t 11111<·!, I 

listed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Th es e L; : :1 i. 11,.J: .. 

set forth certain impairments which are presumed t c, 1J, • . _. t· 

sufficient severity to prevent the performance of work. 2u l~./. >:. 

§404.1525(a). If Plaintiff suffers from an impairment whi cl! 111,:~l:! :::. 

or equals one set forth in the Listings, the Secretary rt::i ,J,:rs .:i 

finding of disability, without consideration of the P la::. 1n i 1· r ':~ 

age, education or work experience. 2 0 C • F • R • § 4 0 -l • 1 '~ :.: 1~ ( d ) . 

Plaintiff's impairment need not however precisely nk,~ t. U ":-

c r i t e r i a of t h e L i s t i n g i n o r de r t o ob t a i n b e n e f i t s . c ,i 

plaintiff's impairments- or a combination of impai r m,:·!1t.._; t ::'. 

medically equivalent to· one in the Listings, disabi1 i t'i' 1-~ 

presumed and benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520( dJ . 

ALJ thoroughly evaluated the Plaintiff's complaints c.11J t h ..: 

medical evidence submitted. 

physical problems the ALJ noted: 

In regards to the Pl.ct ili t. ;if ' ·; 

11 ••• that there is absolutely no hint of medic a l J.y 

determinable findings to support a back impairment. He 

(plaintiff) apparently had a slight shoulder inju LJ 

years ago which required surgery (Exs. 13 through 1 (, J 

which resulted in restriction in heavy lifting. He h.:1d 

an injury to his left knee in August 1984; but surg (; c / 

was performed on June 4, 1985, and the knee was st a b le 

by September 1985. He does use a cane periodically, b1i1: 

there is no evidence of significant restrictions .:. 11 

walking or standing which would indicate the necessi ty 

of an assistive device. His inguinal hernia can be 

repaired with surgery. There is no evidence of a 

hearing loss, and he heard well at the hearing. He h~s 

no blood pressure problems. Finally, while he may h av0 

some problems with a spastic colon from time to timL: , there is no evidence to show significant restrictions c o 

11 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 13 
keep him from working for twelve months or longer .... " 

(TR-14-15). 

The ALJ then evaluated the Plaintiff's psychiatr i c ,;y1s11 ,t c;11.: 

and concluded ·that the Plaintiff had a medically de tE:1 1:1! ! .. :il:, .. , 

a f f e ct i v e d i so rd e r under Li s t in g 1 2 • 0 4 , bu t th a t h e ·. 1 ~, ~- 11 u !: 

significantly limited in his activities as a result the reo : . ( 'l' l ~ 

1 4 ) • The ALJ further concluded that the Plaint i f f':; mo :: 1 

significant problem was his alcoholism. (TR-14). 'L' h , : ,". LJ 

considered the effects of the impairments singul ar l y r:11 : 11 

combination and concluded that they did not meet or eq u ~.1 

impairment contained in the Secretary's Listings. (TR-l S J. 

Plaintiff has not shown that this conclusion was in err o r. 

.j I\ '' 

.J 

Tl11_· 

The next step was for .the ALJ to determine whether e r n c L th(: 

Plaintiff was capable of performing work that he had do nE· J 11 t/1(~ 

past, and the ALJ answered this question in the negat i v~ . T l1 i ~; 

consequently brought the ALJ to the final determination of w h0 t h 1° r 

the severity of the impairment precluded the performance 01.· ,1 1 ht:r 

work. 

A t t h e p o i n t t h a t s t e p f i v e i s r e a c h e d , a d i s .. 1 IJ i l i. L , ' 

preventing prior work activity will have been proven .:ind ct1::.-

burden shifts to the Secretary to show that the cla irna n c r ,: 1 ., i r, :; 

the capacity to perform an alternative work activity whi c l1 ,::-: i ~;r :, 

in the national economy. Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d a t S'/'J . Jn 

many cases, the Secretary can meet this burden by relying c , 1i u1c 

medical/vocational guidelines (hereinafter referred t o ,1 :: the:· 

Grids). 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. 'I'h i;: Cr id::: 

12 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 14 
consider a claimant's residual functional capacity to per f 0r11l .1c rl-: 

in relation to-age, education and work experience. A Serie:::; 01 

rules then set forth presumptions of disability o r u t n .. 

disability, depending on whether there are a significant nu i:.L .·r ::.·,: 

jobs in the national economy that a claimant with that par ; .i ,::i: la r 

configuration of characteristics can perform. 2 0 C • F • R . I J . • 1 [ l. 

404, Subpt. P, App. 2, S200(a); Channel v. Heckler, 747 r. :::J 2 L 

578. When the claimant's particular character is tics as f c.u1 1l1 b1.1 

t h e AL J , co i n c i d e w i t h one o f t he spec i f i c r u 1 e s , t h .:tl r .. 1 1. , : 

directs a conclusion as to whether or not an individual i ~; e r 1 : ; 

not disabled. Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d at 578. 

Under the Secretary's own regulations however, the Gr id :.: 111.J '/ . not be applied conclusively in a given case, unless the cla i ,n.:..11c ' ~; 

characteristics precisely match the criteria of a particular rule. 

Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104 (10th Cir. 1985). Further, co b~ 

placed at a particular level of functional capacity, a c L1i111dnt: 

must be able to perform the full range of work on a daily ~ct s; s. 

Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d at 579. The ALJ determined by u ~ : nq 

the Gr ids as a framework that the Plaintiff was not disabl ed. '.'ltJ 

C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 2u2. '.'. 0. 

This means that the ALJ characterized the Plaintiff as aL,1,: Le, 

perform a full range of light work, classifying him as a yo u1 1,1,:

0 r 

individual with a high school education or more, and • .-;ell 

unskilled or no prior work experience. 

As noted above, automatic application of the Gr 1<1 :; 1 :; 

appropriate only when a plaintiff's residual functional car.,. ,,:· : 1.. y 

13 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 15 
and age, war k experience and education precisely matc h ...i , ~ r i ,:! 

category. 20 e-.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, § 2 0 0 . 00 . re 

however nonexertional limitations also exist, the Grids may n.:,::: b ,? 

applied mechanically, but serve only as a framework t o a i c : ,! t.i: ,: 

determination of whether sufficient jobs are available w 1 t !·, 1 ,1 th,: 

plaintiff's capabilities. Huston v. Bowen, 838 F.2d 1 1 :·~ , 1 1 >. ~ 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

Since the ALJ properly noted that the Plaintiff su fft: L::: 1. ru!,l 

both exertional and nonexertional impairments, the See r , 1: .. ,ry ' :; 

regulations mandated that the Grids first be applied to dt.:·1 t::,·::: i 1k 

w he t he r o r not the P 1 a int i ff i s d i s a b 1 e d by r e a s o n u f t r1t.:: 

exertional impairments alone. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F. 2d ,..:c ·i l:3. 

Since the Grids directed a . conclusion of not disabled, t he :-.L,.i vJ.:.i: ; 

then required to make a second individualized determinat ion u :; i r~,J 

the Grids only as a framework for consideration of hov1 muc h th, : 

P 1 a i n t i f f ' s w or k cap ab i 1 i t y was f u r the r dim in i shed by h i ~; 

nonexertional limitations. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d at 513. 

Here, the ALJ correctly considered the nonex e r L i Jt1.;il. 

impairments suffered by the Plaintiff including his alcoho li ~m. 

psychiatric problems, and his subjective complaints of pa i n . ·f' tH· 

ALJ determined that these nonexertional limitation s d i,J 110l 

significantly compromise the Plaintiff's ability to perform _, Lull 

range of light work. 

Pain can be a disabling condition under the Soci a l S0cu , ity 

Act. For conclusive evidence of disabling pain, the Act r equ i i~s : 

14 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 16 
' 

" .•• medical signs and findings, established by medica ll y 

acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic te~hniques , which sha,,w.. the existence of a medical impairment t h.it 

results from anatomical, physiological, or psychologi c.il 

abnormalities which could reasonably be expect e d co 

produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and wh ich , when considered with all evidence required to Ge 

furnished under this paragraph (including statements o f 

the individual or his physician as to the intensity and 

persistence of such pain or other symptoms which m.::iy 

reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medi c~1 

signs and findings), would lead to a conclusion that tn e 

individual is under a disability. Objective medi c.ii 

evidence of pain or other symptoms established Ly 

medically acceptable clinical or laboratory techniqu ~s 

( for example, deteriorating nerve or muscle tissue) m u:;L 

be considered in reaching a conclusion as to whethe r tli 2 

individual is under a disability .... " 

42 U.S.C. S423(d) (5) (A). 

This provision has been interpreted in this C irL:ui 1 d e, 

requir1ng that the pain testimony be consistent with the d~ g r 0,· 01. 

pain that could reasonably be expected from a determinab le 111lc' d~ c..:1 L 

abnormality. Huston v r Bowen, 838 F.2d at 1129. Th e Cc, u c 1 1 n 

Huston noted however that the medical findings themselves ni: ·.:··,:J nc1. 

es tab 1 i sh or con f i rm the deg re e of pain a 11 e g e d , bu t t I Li t Uk 

medical impairment itself must be shown to exist and s hoid,j be 

reasonably capable of producing the alleged pain leve l i;1 :..;cm, ~ 

individuals. Huston v. Bowen, 838 F.2d at 1129. 

The relationship between the impairment and the all eg~J μ~in 

need however only be a loose one. Huston v. Bowen, 8 J8 1-· . 1..J <l l 

1129. If an impairment is reasonably expected to produ c,: ~;. :. 11 k 

pain, allegations of disabling pain emanating from that imp,,ir1r12nt 

are sufficiently consistent to require consideration o t all 

relevant evidence. Huston v. Bowen, 838 F.2d at 1129; Lu r, .1 v . 

Bowen, 834 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1987). 

15 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 17 
Regarding the Plaintiff's complaints of pain, en c:: J,'. , J 

con c 1 u de d and -the r e cord es tab 1 rs hes th a t the P 1 a i n t i := ::' t: ~, :: 

experienced some medical problems which could cause him f.>-:1i 1, <1 11 ·~ 

d i scomfort. However, not all pain is "disabling." 

Heckler, 738 F.2d 641 (5th Cir. 1984). The ALJ p1 c;;,·r.L' / 

considered all medical evidence presented, which includell 1: L LL~ 

objective evidence of pain, and he also considered the s ub j ~c[ iv~ 

accounts of the Plaintiff as to the severity of his pain. l'L,_· f,l..J 

at this stage may assess the Plaintiff I s credibility in ma k i r. q hi :; 

decision. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748 (10th Cir. 1 98b) . 'l'l ll~ 

ALJ concluded that the evidence failed to establish a d L: •JC• ,. ct: 

pain that 

• 

would prohibit the Plaintiff from eng ag 1 11 ,:; l i i 

substantial gainful activity, or that would sign i f ic-..11,t l y 

compromise his ability t ·o per form the full range of 1 i g h t .,,,., r k . 

·' 

(TR-15, 16). This finding is supported by the evidence. 

In regard~ to the Plaintiff I s mental problems, th e e:-: i s t L·nc ,· 

of a mental problem is not per se disabling, but r ct t h._·r Lh c: 

impairment's disabling severity must be shown. S a 111 !J L ,. v. - ··------- - --

Schweiker, 694 F. 2d 639 ( 9th Cir. 1982). The fact that a tn ,:nLa 1 

impairment makes a person less employable because the p er:..; u n 1 .~ 

less attractive to employers does not make that person eJ 1 <; i ld 1-: 

for benefits, unless the plaintiff shows the impairme n t c :., bv 

disabling. Sitar v. Schweiker, 671 F.2d 19, 21 (1st Cir. l~ tL!). 

From the decision of the ALJ, it is apparent that he fully 

considered all of the evidence offered by the Plaintiff. 'I'lk /'.LJ 

properly evaluated all of the testimony concerning the Pl a i ntiff ' ~ 

16 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 18 
alleged mental-impairment in accordance with the Secr c c.::11y' :cregulations, which were promulgated pursuant to th e :~ c..::· i. .::. ! 

Security Disability Reform Act of 1984. 

The ALJ further found that the Plaintiff's most s i g n ~E i ~~ n t 

r estricting problem was his alcoholism. The ALJ first noc eJ c~ ~ 

lack of physiological problems which have r esu 1 t ed f r c fl , ch •:-

Plaintiff I s alcoholism. It thus appears clear that the P L1 i !11 . i r 1.: 

did not meet Listing 12.09 dealing with substance ad d 1 cL. ic,n 

disorders. The ALJ then properly evaluated the effects of tht · 

Plaintiff's alcoholism. Courts differ on whether u r no t 

alcoho,lism alone is a disabling condition. See Williams v. r:.,:, ·.:c:: n , 

844 F.2d at 757 and the cases cited therein. Courts do s ,: ~1 ,t c. c 

agree that a key factor is whether or not the claimant c a n c G1,Lro l 

his alcoholism. The Plaintiff I s testimony indicated that 1 11 · lu::.: 

been unsuccessful in controlling his drinking problem e x ce f, c , . 11 ., 

short-term basis. (TR-46). However, there was ample ev i d e:·n c t· cc 

the contrary upon which the ALJ could rely. For e xamp l ~, .J.r 1 

describing his average day, the Plaintiff made no me n t i. cJ 1·, o t 

alcohol, nor did he offer any testimony to show that any ,::, i n.i :; 

daily activities are restricted or affected by his alcoh o li ~m. 

(TR-38). He testified that he does odd jobs around the t1o u ::::i:: , 

mows the lawn, and drives a car, all without mention thd l t1i. ~; 

alcoholism affects any of these activities. In f ac t , 1_ t1c 

Plaintiff in describing his daily activities to a Social Se c ur1i: y 

administration official, stated that he does not have any pr c L! .. :111 :~ 

17 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 19 
with his alcoholism. (TR-1O2). After the Plaintiff had t e::ti f LL·::I 

as to his various problems, the ALJ on two occasions ask 0 J Lli,· 

Plaintiff if there were any other problems that would pr ev t:·ri I n 1 :1, 

from working. (TR-43). The P 1 a i n t i f f d i d no t m e n t i , ) 1 1 .1 n ·r' 

problems with alcoholism until his attorney later dir ec t l ·,- __, _:k ,::. J 

the Plaintiff questions concerning his drinking. (TR-45). 

Further, there is nothing in the record to indica t e t k1t. th ,.: 

Plaintiff's on-the-job injuries were caused by his drin k i r, ,J , an ,i 

except for one brief reference, there is nothing in the r e co r c t c 

indicate that the Plaintiff has ever lost a job or h ... ,• ... -~ 

refused employment due to alcoholism. The brief refer e nL:c: 1 :.;; •. 1 

report from Dr. Males dated April 3, 1986. 

• 

In taking a ri i :~ 1o r y 

from the Plaintiff, Dr. Males indicates that the Plaintif f ,el a te d 

that he was f i r e d f r om hi s j ob as a po 1 i c e o f f i c e r:: ,:1 u L.: L 0 

insubordination "that retrospectively may have been pr esd •Jf.·,J b y 

his chronic use of alcohol." (TR-123). It appears fr om h i ~ ~~rk 

history that the Plaintiff either has controlled his alcohol. i :.:1 11 or 

that it did not affect his capacity to perform his jobs. 

Lastly, there is no indication in the record th .:.t c:h ..: · 

Plaintiff missed any appointments or that he showed up f ,: r 11 i. :.: 

appointments smelling of alcohol. In short, there is no e v i.,-lr· 11 c1:-

to indicate that the Plaintiff's alcoholism would signi fic.:,n t. l~' -

compromise his capacity for a full range of light work. '[' ht: 

evidence is to the contrary. Thus, it was not error for t he ALJ 

to conclude that the Plaintiff's alcoholism, alone er 111 

combination with his other impairments, did not con s t iLut,: .:., 

18 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 20 
' . 

disability or significantly compromise his capacity for ~ t u ! l 

range of - lighe-work. See LeMaster v. Secretary of He z, l t r1 ,1 ! , , .: 

Human Services, 802 F.2d 839, 842 (6th Cir. 1986). 

The Court· having reviewed the medical evidence of r e c (n cJ , ci 1<: 

tr ans er ipt of the administrative hearing, the decision of tr,c· ,'\LJ , 

and the pleadings and briefs of the parties, find s t l1o..1 L ch .. -

decision of the ALJ is based upon substantial evidence and must. Lw 

. affirmed. Based upon this finding, the final decision o r" tb<" · 

Defendant Secretary sh o u 1 d be a ff i rm e d and a j u d g 111 ,~ 1: L 0 t 

affirmance will be entered this date. 

IT rs so ORDERED this / / ,-... day of October, 198 8 . 

~c---A-,-,Y-,-N~-::-- · -=E ...... ·• -~....,,...L...,,...LE:-:-Y-C-u_ __ 1⁄2-i-......----··---------- . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

1· -.--· 

,, ,·, ·.::_ -· . : . I - ._ • • , , • - I • 

19 

Appellate Case: 88-2799 Document: 01019974681 Date Filed: 08/09/1989 Page: 21