Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05061/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee
Michael D. Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL D. WILSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cfrru.it 

FEB 2 8 19 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-5061 

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

Department of Health and Human 

Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. 89-C-20-E) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

In this review of the denial of Michael D. Wilson's claim for 

social security disability benefits, the only issues are whether 

the conclusion of the administrative law judge (ALJ) was supported 

by substantial evidence, and whether Wilson's complaints of pain 

were reviewed by the ALJ under the requirements of Luna v. Bowen, 

834 F.2d 161, 165-66 (10th Cir. 1987). 1 We conclude that the 

* 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 estoppal. 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. 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 90-5061 Document: 010110031045 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 1 
ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the 

claimant's descriptions of pain were properly evaluated. We 

therefore affirm. 

The factual background and procedural history of this case 

are fully set forth in the ALJ's first decision, IR. Supp. (Tr.) 

at 51-69, the ALJ's second decision, id. at 15-32, and the 

Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations, I R. tab 16 

(magistrate's recommendations), collectively. 2 In this order and 

judgment, we will repeat only those aspects of the case necessary 

for our analysis on appeal. 

The standard of review utilized by the district court also 

applies to our review on appeal: 

Judicial review of the Secretary's determination is 

limited in scope by 42 u.s.c. § 405(g). The court's 

sole function is to determine whether the record as a 

whole contains substantial evidence to support the 

Secretary's decisions. The Secretary's findings stand 

if they are supported by "such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 

(1971)(citing Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 

U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). In deciding whether the 

Secretary's findings are supported by substantial 

evidence, the court must consider the record as a whole. 

Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1978). 

Magistrate's recommendations at 2. It would thus be improper for 

this court to reweigh the evidence. We are limited to determining 

whether a reasonable and independent person, new to the case, 

(continued from previous page) 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 Wilson filed objections to the findings and recommendations 

of the magistrate, IR. tab 17, but the district court adopted the 

magistrate's recommendations over these objections without further 

comment. Id. tab 20. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5061 Document: 010110031045 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 2 
could conclude that the decision the ALJ made is supported by 

adequate evidence. 

Because Wilson's claim includes that of disabling pain and 

because such pain cannot itself be observed, we must be careful to 

make sure that the ALJ considered observable indications of 

disabling pain. This circuit listed several of these in Luna v. 

Bowen, 834 F.2d at 165-66, quoted at length in the magistrate's 

recommendations at 4. We have read the entire record of the 

administrative proceeding, from the first claim for benefits 

through the last letter requesting reconsideration of the appeals 

council's affirmation of the ALJ's second denial of benefits, 

including all the medical records. We agree with the magistrate 

that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. 

See Magistrate's recommendations at 5-6. 

Wilson argues on appeal that he cannot return to his past 

relevant work, as found by the ALJ. The magistrate included an 

accurate summary of the five-step sequential evaluation of social 

security disability benefits claims. Magistrate's recommendations 

at 2-3. The issue at step four is "whether the impairment 

prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work." Id. The 

issue at step five is whether the "claimant's impairment prevents 

him from doing any other relevant work available in the national 

economy." Id. at 3. After the first hearing, the ALJ found that 

"claimant has the physical residual functional capacity to engage 

in his past relevant work as a mail clerk or mail handler, both of 

which are considered in the Dictionary of Occupational titles of 

the United State Department of Labor to be light work activity." 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5061 Document: 010110031045 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 3 
Tr. at 56. After the second hearing, the ALJ found that "claimant 

can return to his past relevant work." Tr. at 20. The magistrate 

noted Wilson's disagreement with this finding, but combined his 

discussion about whether Wilson could return to past relevant work 

with his discussion about whether the ALJ's decision was supported 

by substantial evidence. The magistrate included the following 

statement concerning the burden of proof: "It is well settled 

that the claimant bears the burden of proving his disability that 

presents him from engaging in any gainful work activity. Channel 

v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577, 579 (10th Cir. 1984)." Magistrate's 

recommendations at 4. 

The magistrate's recommendations erred in implicitly adopting 

the ALJ's conclusion that Wilson could return to his previous job 

in the face of evidence in the record that he was unable to do 

heavy labor. Wilson's previous work was that of a mail handler, 

which required regularly lifting objects in excess of fifty pounds 

and occasionally lifting objects in excess of 100 pounds, loading 

and unloading objects from semi-trailer trucks. Tr. at 139-50. 

According to the ALJ's own determination of Wilson's occupational 

limitations, Wilson is precluded from work involving repetitive 

bending or crouching or frequent interactions with a supervisor. 

See also Magistrate's recommendations at 3. See 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1567(e), 416.967(e)(1989)("Very heavy work involves lifting 

objects weighing more than 100 pounds with frequent lifting 

or carrying of objects weighing 50 pounds or more"). Wilson is, 

by the ALJ's own findings, precluded from returning to his past 

relevant work. Therefore, the ALJ should have proceeded to step 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-5061 Document: 010110031045 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 4 
five to determine whether the claimant's impairment prevents him 

from performing any other work, and the magistrate should have so 

noted. 

The Channel court is very clear that at step five, the burden 

is on the Secretary, rather than on the claimant. 

The claimant bears the burden of proving a 

disability within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act. Once the claimant makes a prima facie showing of 

disability that prevents his engaging in his prior work 

activity, however, the burden of going forward shifts to 

the Secretary, who must show that the claimant retains 

the capacity to perform an alternative work activity and 

that this specific type of job exists in the national 

economy. 

Channel, 747 F.2d at 579 (citations omitted). See also Gatson v. 

Bowen, 838 F.2d 442, 448 (10th Cir. 1988). Thus, the burden was 

on the Secretary, not on Wilson, to show that his impairment did 

not prevent him from doing any work even though it prevented him 

from returning to his previous job. 

These two errors are harmless in this case, however, even in 

combination, because the ALJ found that Wilson has the residual 

functional capacity to work in the alternate job classification of 

mail clerk. Tr. at 21. 3 This conclusion is supported by 

substantial evidence which was introduced by the Secretary 

concerning the level of Wilson's physical capabilities. Because 

sufficient evidence is present in the record to sustain the ALJ's 

3 The magistrate added that "[t]he Dictionary of Occupational 

Titles states that the occupation of mail clerk (D.O.T. No. 

209.587-[02]6) is a 'light' occupation which only requires the 

ability to reach, handle, feel, finger, and see. Selected 

Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles, pp. 233 and 318 (1981 ed.)." Magistrate's 

recommendation at 7. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-5061 Document: 010110031045 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 5 
decision under the correct burden of proof and step number, we 

will not remand this case solely for ministerial corrections. 

Finally, Wilson's counsel on appeal complains that the two 

hearings before the ALJ were too brief to elicit the evidence 

necessary to support Wilson's claim. He is correct that the 

hearings were brief. However, Wilson was present and was 

represented by an attorney at both hearings. Nothing in the 

transcripts indicates that the ALJ cut short Wilson's presentation 

of evidence in support of his claim. 

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate's recommendations 

as supplemented and corrected herein, the judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan, 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-5061 Document: 010110031045 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 6