Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07021/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andy L. McGough
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

I 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uaiccd Slites C.OUrt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 1 :J 1990 

ANDY L. MCGOUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-7021 

(D.C. No. 88-204-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Claimant appeals from an order of the district court 

affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services denying claimant's request for disability and 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. On appeal, claimant 

* 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: 89-7021 Document: 010110038383 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 1 
J 

argues (1) the district court and administrative law judge (ALJ) 

decisions are not based on substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ erred 

in failing to call a vocational expert to evaluate claimant's 

nonexertional impairments; and ( 3 ) the ALJ erred in his 

determination regarding claimant's pain and credibility. We 

affirm. 

Claimant initially requested disability benefits on 

October 16, 1974, alleging disability commencing April 30, 1974, 

due to back problems. The Secretary awarded benefits, but later 

terminated them in June, 1981. Claimant again filed applications 

for benefits on May 5, 1982, February 14, 1983, and July 11, 1984. 

These applications were denied administratively. 

On December 3, 1986, claimant, who has had two back 

surgeries, filed these applications for disability benefits and 

SSI alleging disability commencing December 1, 1980, due to a back 

injury and right leg, back, and shoulder arthritis and pain. 

Benefits were denied initially and on reconsideration. 

holding a hearing, the ALJ also denied benefits. 

After 

The ALJ 

determined claimant suffered from status post lumbar laminectomies 

times two with limitation of motion and degenerative changes in 

the right knee and both shoulders. Rejecting claimant's 

complaints of pain as not credible and probably exaggerated, the 

ALJ found no severe nonexertional impairments. The ALJ determined 

claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full 

range of sedentary work. Based on claimant's age of forty-two, 

limited eighth grade education, work experience as a logger, sand 

blaster, and bricklayer's helper, 

2 

and residual functional 

Appellate Case: 89-7021 Document: 010110038383 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 2 
• 

capacity, the ALJ concluded claimant was not disabled. When the 

Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's 

decision became the final decision of the Secretary. Claimant 

then filed for review in the district court, which affirmed the 

Secretary. This appeal followed. 

Like the district court, we will uphold the Secretary's 

decision and findings if they are supported by substantial 

evidence. Nieto v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 59, 61 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Su bstantial evidence is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 

389, 401 (1971). Although we must meticulously examine the 

record, we may not weigh the evidence or substitute our discretion 

for that of the Secretary. Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 

710-11 (10th Cir. 1989); Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 414 

(10th Cir. 1983). The Secretary's decision is subject to reversal 

if he did not apply the proper legal standard. Bernal v. Bowen, 

851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The claimant has the burden of making a prima facie showing 

o f disability and inability to engage in substantial gainful 

employment. Broadbent, 698 F.2d at 412. Once the claimant meets 

this burden, the burden shifts to 

claimant retains the capacity to perform 

the Secretary to show that 

alternative work types 

which exist within the national economy. Diaz v. Secretary of 

Health & Human Servs., 898 F.2d 774, 776 (10th Cir. 1990); Talbot 

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

circumstances, the Secretary can meet this burden by relying on 

the grids. The grids cannot be conclusively applied, however, 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7021 Document: 010110038383 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 3 
I 

I ' 

when a nonexertional impairment, such as pain, limits the 

claimant's ability to perform the full range of work in a 

particular residual functional capacity category. 

Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1105 (10th Cir. 1985). 

Teter v. 

In this action, the ALJ applied the grids after rejecting as 

not credible claimant's allegations of pain and illiteracy and 

finding that claimant could perform sedentary work. Claimant 

argues that the ALJ should not have applied the grids because the 

ALJ erred in his credibility findings and should have required 

vocational testimony. 

We have thoroughly reviewed the medical evidence and 

claimant's testimony. We conclude that although the medical 

evidence shows claimant suffers from a condition which does cause 

some pain, the ALJ did not err in rejecting claimant's complaints 

of disabling pain. In addition, we conclude the record fully 

supports the ALJ's determination that claimant can read and write. 

Determinations of the credibility of the claimant are left to the 

Secretary. See Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 517 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Because the record adequately supports the ALJ's findings and 

application of the grids, the ALJ did not err by failing to call a 

vocational expert to testify. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-7021 Document: 010110038383 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 4