Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07101/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07101-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tommy R. Beesley
Appellant
Otis R. Bowen
Appellee

Document Text:

}:tILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

U{lited Sf iices Court of AppeaJs 

Tenth Circuit 

1

!JN 2 6 1990 

TOMMY R. BEESLEY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

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

Health and Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-7101 

(D.C . No. 89-027-C) 

(E . D. Okla . ) 

Before McKAY, MOORE, 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 . 

Appellant Tommy R. Beesley appeals from the decision of the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services terminating Mr. Beesley's 

disability benefits. Mr. Beesley's original disability claim 

resulted from an occupational accident in December 1981 in which 

* 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: 89-7101 Document: 010110037422 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Beesley's right lower leg was severely injured. The termination of Mr. Beesley's benefits was based on a finding that Mr. 

Beesley's condition had improved and that the improvement rendered 

him not disabled. Mr. Beesley sought and received a de novo hearing before an administrative law judge. The ALJ found Mr. Beesley 

was improved and not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Mr. 

Beesley's request for review of the ALJ's decision which thus 

became the final decision of the Secretary. Mr. Beesley sought 

review in the district court which found that the Secretary's 

decision was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. 

We have reviewed carefully the administrative record, including the physicians' reports, the transcript of the ALJ hearing, 

and the ALJ's order. Having done so, we conclude that the Secretary's findings are supported by substantial evidence. 

Despite Mr. Beesley's argument to the contrary, the ALJ properly compared Mr. Beesley's impairment on December 28, 1981 (the 

date of the injury) with his condition in November 1987. In making the comparison, the ALJ partially relied on the reports of 

Mr. Beesley's treating physician, Dr. Rowlan, to find that by 1985 

Mr. Beesley had improved. See Record, vol. 2, at 16. According 

to Dr. Rowlan's records, Mr. Beesley visited Dr. Rowlan in July 

1984. At that time, Dr. Rowlan concluded that despite the severity of Mr. Beesley's injury, he "had a very good gait ... and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7101 Document: 010110037422 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 2 
[was] having no specific problems." Id. In contrast, on December 

29, 1981, Dr. Hyde, who was Mr. Beesley's earlier treating physician, stated that Mr. Beesley "will have a long period of hospitalization and disability . and . he will have considerable permanent disability in [the right lower] extremity when 

healed." Id. at 138. Also, on February 14, 1983, Dr. Hyde concluded that Mr. Beesley's old fracture had taken an unfavorable 

turn and required further surgery. See id. at 154. Based on the 

contrast between Dr. Rowlan's findings in 1984 and Dr. Hyde's 

statements in 1981 and 1983, we cannot say that the Secretary's 

decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 

Mr. Beesley also argues that the Secretary improperly ignored 

Mr. Beesley's subjective allegations of disabling pain. In his 

order, the ALJ simply concluded that the "statements and testimony 

of disabling impairments and pain, in and after November, 1987, 

are not supported by the medical evidence, daily activities and 

medications taken." Record, vol. 2, at 18. 

Mr. Beesley properly points out that under Luna v. Bowen, 834 

F . 2d 161 (10th Cir. 1987), subjective allegations of disabling 

pain must be evaluated based on all relevant evidence and cannot 

be disregarded merely because objective medical evidence does not 

suggest the degree of pain alleged. See Luna, 834 F.2d at 163-64. 

Indeed, so long as objective medical evidence indicates an impairment that might reasonably be expected to produce some pain, all 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7101 Document: 010110037422 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 3 
1 

relevant evidence must be considered in determining whether subjective claims of disabling pain are true. See id. 

We hold that the Secretary's decision satisfied the requirements of Luna outlined above. Mr. Beesley clearly had an impairment that might reasonably be expected to produce pain. Further, 

the pain he alleged, namely back and leg pain, was related to the 

impairment. Despite this, however, the Secretary's finding that 

the pain was not disabling is supported by substantial evidence. 

In so finding, the ALJ considered the report of Dr. Rowlan which 

stated that Mr. Beesley was ready in 1984 to return to work. The 

only evidence contradicting this report was the subjective allegations of Mr. Beesley himself. Although the Secretary was duty 

bound to consider Mr. Beesley's allegations along with all other 

relevant evidence, he was not required to favor those allegations 

over other evidence. In this case, the Secretary simply found the 

physician's reports to be more persuasive than Mr. Beesley's allegations of pain. We cannot say the Secretary erred by so finding. 

Because we conclude that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7101 Document: 010110037422 Date Filed: 06/26/1990 Page: 4