Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06234/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alice M. Ryburn
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

, ·• 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Ci!'.'mit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALICE M. RYBURN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary 

of Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6234 

(D.C. No. ~IV-85- 2271-r.) 

( W. D. Okla . ) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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 

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: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 1 
Claimant Alice M. Ryburn appeals from the district court's 

order affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to deny her applications for social security disability 

benefits, 42 u.s.c. §§ 401-33, and supplemental security income 

(SSI) benefits, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83c. After reviewing the record 

on appeal, we conclude claimant was disabled as of June 14, 1985. 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for prompt payment of benefits. 

This case has had a long prior history. Claimant filed 

applications for disability and SSI benefits on October 9, 1984, 

alleging disability commencing in July, 1983. These initial 

applications and the requests for reconsideration were denied. 

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge 

(ALJ), in the final decision of the Secretary, denied benefits. 

On appeal, the district court remanded to the Secretary for 

consideration of the new regulations for evaluating mental 

impairments. After holding another hearing, the ALJ again denied 

benefits. The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's decision. Again, 

on appeal, the district court remanded for additional proceedings, 

including vocational testimony. 

At the end of the third ALJ hearing, the record indicated 

that claimant was fifty-two years old and had one year of college 

and prior work history as a telephone operator, PBX operator, 

cashier, billing clerk, office worker, office manager, and 

landman. In July, 1983, she voluntarily stopped working to care 

for her son, who was involved in a serious accident. Her primary 

medical problems started in May, 1984, when she experienced chest 

pains and several asystolic periods. A pacemaker was placed in 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 2 
her chest at that time. On June 14, 1985, claimant was diagnosed 

as suffering from adult onset diabetes mellitus. Also, on that 

day, claimant was first diagnosed as suffering from chronic 

depression. 

After this third hearing before the ALJ, the ALJ again denied 

benefits. The ALJ determined that claimant suffered from the 

severe impairments of diabetes mellitus, which was under good 

control, but with probable diabetic neuropathy; cardiovascular 

problems necessitating use of a pacemaker; chronic depression 

secondary to physical problems; and a somatoform disorder. 

Although the ALJ recognized that claimant's impairments, including 

her pacemaker and inability to tolerate high levels of stress, 

limited her ability to work, the ALJ concluded that claimant could 

perform certain types of semi-skilled sedentary work which exist 

in the national economy. The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's 

decision. In a lengthy and thorough opinion, the district court 

affirmed. 

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). 

Substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion. 

389, 401 (1971). Although we 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 

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 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 3 
reversal, however, if he did not apply the proper legal standards. 

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

On appeal, claimant first argues that the Secretary erred in 

concluding that claimant's impairments do not meet the criteria 

for affective disorders set out in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, 

app. 1, § 12.04. Because the Secretary's findings are not 

supported by substantial evidence, we agree with claimant that her 

impairments do meet the listings and that she is disabled. 

The regulations provide that if a claimant has an impairment, 

which is listed in appendix 1, lasting at least twelve months, she 

will be found disabled without consideration of her age, 

education, and prior work experience. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); Fulton v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1052, 1055 

(10th Cir. 1985); Knipe v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 141, 145 (10th Cir. 

1985) . A listed impairment is one which is so severe that it 

prevents a claimant from engaging in any gainful employment. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(a), 416.925(a). 

Section 12.04 of appendix 1 lists the criteria for 

establishing a disabling affective disorder. Such a disorder is 

[c]haracterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by 

a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood 

refers to a prolonged emotion that colors the whole 

psychic life; it generally involves either depression or 

elation. 

The required level of severity for these disorders 

is met when the requirements in both A and Bare 

satisfied. 

A. Medically documented persistence, either 

continuous or intermittent, of one of the following: 

1. Depressive syndrome characterized by at least 

four of the following: 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 4 
a. Anhedonia or pervasive loss of interest in 

almost all activities; or 

b. Appetite disturbance with change in weight; or 

c. Sleep disturbance; or 

d. Psychomotor agitation or retardation; or 

e. Decreased energy; or 

f. Feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or 

g. Difficulty concentrating or thinking; or 

h. Thoughts of suicide; or 

i. Hallucinations, delusions or paranoid 

thinking[.] 

AND 

B. Resulting in at least two of the following: 

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily 

living; or 

2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social 

functioning; or 

3. Deficiencies of concentration, persistence or 

pace resulting in frequent failure to complete tasks in 

a timely manner (in work settings or elsewhere); or 

4. Repeated episodes of deterioration or 

decompensation in work or work-like settings which cause 

the individual to withdraw from that situation or to 

experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms (which may 

include deterioration of adaptive behaviors). 

Id. 1 Claimant must satisfy both Al and B. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude claimant has met the 

requirements of Al and B, and, therefore, has met the listings. 

The evidence indicates claimant has a twelve-year history of 

depression. Her deteriorating physical conditions and emotional 

depression cause her to have a limited capacity to function. 

Claimant has lost interest in most activities. She no longer 

socializes and cannot motivate herself to do the crocheting she 

previously did. She indicated that she primarily spends her days 

1 Although this regulation was scheduled to expire on 

August 28, 1990, it was extended for one year. 55 Fed. Reg. 

35,286 (1990); see 55 Fed. Reg. 38,190 (1990) (correction of 

typographical error). 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 5 
J ' .. • 

watching television and staying at home alone. Claimant testified 

and the medical evidence corroborated that she has decreased 

energy and fatigue. Also, she has feelings of guilt and 

worthlessness. Her failed marriages, as well as the many personal 

tragedies she has suffered, contribute to her negative feelings 

and general feeling of hopelessness. Her inability to concentrate 

is well documented. Claimant has met four of the criteria of Al. 

Claimant likewise meets the requirements of B. She has 

marked restriction of daily living activities. Her restrictions 

include an inability to squat or bend, a straining of her heart 

when she lifts her arms, difficulty vacuuming, difficulty driving 

due to having chest pain while driving and the numbness in her 

lower legs and feet, and shortness of breath after walking a 

quarter of a mile. The record also reflects her inability to 

concentrate and her sensitivity to stressful situations. 

We hold that claimant meets the criteria of appendix 1, 

section 12.04 and is therefore disabled. The Secretary's contrary 

conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Because 

remand for further proceedings would not serve any useful purpose, 

we remand for payment of benefits as of June 14, 1985, the first 

date she was diagnosed as suffering from disabling depression. 

See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 760 (10th Cir. 1988). 

On appeal, claimant also argues that she cannot perform any 

substantial gainful employment. Because we hold that she is 

disabled under appendix 1, section 12.04, we need not address this 

argument. 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 6 
~ ' . . 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the action is 

REMANDED for immediate payment of disability and SSI benefits as 

of June 14, 1985. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-6234 Document: 010110098422 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 7