Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07075/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Judy F. Matthews
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~ . F I L L ·i1 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ruted St~ ~~y{lppeals 

JUDY F. MATTHEWS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DEC 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No . 92-7075 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-409-S) 

( E . D. Okla. ) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

Claimant Judy Matthews appeals from a district court order 

affirming the Secretary's denial of disability insurance benefits. 

After carefully reviewing the record and applicable law, we 

affirm.

1 

* 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 . 

1 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. 

Appellate Case: 92-7075 Document: 010110152736 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 1 
At the time of her hearing before the ALJ, Matthews was 

forty-two years old . She worked as a coal miner for ten years and 

has had back surgery three times. The most recent operation took 

place in February of 1989 and repaired back injuries caused by a 

mining accident. She has not worked since October 6, 1988, and 

alleges total disability as of that date. 

In this appeal, Matthews contends that: 1) the ALJ erred in 

assessing the evidence on disabling pain; 2) the ALJ erred in 

equating school attendance with substantial gainful activity, and 

3) the magistrate judge's application of a "sit and squirm" index 

to the proceedings was inappropriate. 

I 

Matthews maintains that the medical records, combined with 

the hearing testimony, support a finding of disabling pain. In 

particular, she challenges the ALJ's assessment of her credibility 

and his treatment of the vocational expert's testimony . As 

Matthews acknowledges in her brief on appeal, our review of the 

record is limited to determining whether it contains substantial 

evidence supporting the ALJ's decision. See Williams v. Bowen, 

844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). "Substantial evidence is such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion." Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1486 

(10th Cir. 1991). In applying this standard, we are mindful that 

we may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for 

that of the agency. Id. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7075 Document: 010110152736 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 2 
If the claimant's impairment is reasonably expected to 

produce some pain, as here, the Secretary must consider all 

relevant evidence in the record to determine whether the pain 

results in disability. See Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161, 164 (10th . 

Cir. 1987). Factors to consider include "claimant's persistent 

attempts to find relief for [her] pain and [her] willingness to 

try any treatment prescribed, regular use of crutches or a cane, 

regular contact with a doctor, and the possibility that 

psychological disorders combine with physical problems." Id. at 

165-66. In addition, the ALJ should consider: 

the levels of medication [taken] and their 

effectiveness, ... the nature of daily activities, 

subjective measures of credibility that are peculiarly 

within the judgment o~ the ALJ, the motivation of and 

relationship between the claimant and other witnesses, 

and the consistency or compatibility of nonmedical 

testimony with objective medical evidence. 

Huston v. Bowen, 838 F.2d 1125, 1132 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The ALJ's opinion here reflects that he took these factors 

into account when considering Matthews' statements concerning 

pain. In particular, while recognizing that Matthews does have 

physical limitations, the ALJ noted there is no objective medical 

evidence supporting the severe limitations she described. She 

does not use a cane or crutches. Her treating physician advised 

her to stop wearing a corset. Although she stated that she is 

drowsy for some time after taking her medication, that symptom is 

not mentioned in any medical report, while other symptoms are well 

documented. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7075 Document: 010110152736 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 3 
The ALJ also questioned Matthews' credibility because her 

daily activities are consistent with a person who is able to 

perform light and sedentary work. According to her testimony, as 

well as a diary submitted at the hearing, Matthews is able t o d o 

light housework, some cooking, attend classes, do homework, and d o 

some drawing. Her class schedule, although new at the time of the 

hearing, required her to sit for three hours a day . Although she 

stated her medication makes her drowsy, she also testified that 

she is able to do Algebra homework after taking it, which 

undermines her statement that it impairs her concentration. 

The ALJ stated, "[t]he claimant's credibility is impaired, 

and her subjective complaints, including pain, (considered in 

accordance with Social Security Ruling 88-13 ) , are found to be 

self-serving and not consistent with the medical evidence and the 

present life-style of the claimant." Rec., vol. II, at 16. The 

ALJ's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference. 

Williams, 844 F.2d at 755. We have reviewed the record carefully 

and it contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision 

to discredit claimant's testimony. 

The ALJ used a hypothetical question to elicit testimony 

concerning the functional capacity of a person with Matthews' 

limitations. Matthews objects to reliance on that hypothetical, 

contending it did not include a complete description of her 

impairments. '" [T]estimony elicited by hypothetical questions 

that do not relate with precision all of a claimant's impairments 

cannot constitute substantial evidence to support the Secretary's 

decision.'" Hargis, 945 F.2d at 1492 (quoting Ekeland v. Bowen, 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7075 Document: 010110152736 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 4 
899 F.2d 719, 724 (8th Cir. 1990)). In forming a hypothetical, 

however, the ALJ need only relate impairments if the record 

contains substantial evidence to support their inclusion. See 

Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 969 F.2d 534, 540 

(7th Cir. 1992). The ALJ here determined that the record does not 

contain substantial evidence to support Matthews' testimony 

regarding the extent of pain. Consequently, the ALJ properly 

limited his hypothetical to a listing of those impairments which 

he found supported in the record. Id. 

III 

Matthews also maintains the ALJ equated her school attendance 

with substantial gainful activity. An ability to attend classes, 

without more, is not per se evidence of an ability to perform 

substantial gainful activity. Cohen v. Secretary of Dep't of 

Health & Human Servs., 964 F.2d 524, 530 (6th Cir. 1992). School 

attendance may be considered, however, as one factor in the 

spectrum of evidence used to determine whether the claimant is 

disabled. Markham v. Califano, 601 F.2d 533, 534 (10th Cir. 

1979) . The ALJ's opinion reflects that school attendance was 

merely one factor which he considered. 

IV 

Finally, Matthews challenges the magistrate judge's alleged 

application of the "sit and squirm" index. In his report and 

recommendation, which the district court adopted, the magistrate 

judge deferred to the ALJ's conclusions in part because he had the 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7075 Document: 010110152736 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 5 
"advantage of personal observation of the plaintiff during the 

time she appeared before him." Rec. Vol. I at 8 . In context, it 

is clear the magistrate judge was deferring to the ALJ's 

credibility determinations, which is proper. Objections based on 

application of the "sit and squirm" index, as Matthews describes 

it, have been upheld in those situations where the ALJ improperly 

disregarded allegations of pain. See,~. Teter v. Heckler, 775 

F.2d 1104, 1106 (10th Cir. 1985) . We have already held that the 

ALJ properly considered Matthews' statements concerning her pain . 

Consequently, we reject this argument. 

IV 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-7075 Document: 010110152736 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 6