Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07025/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee
Stephen F. Vansickle
Appellant

Document Text:

FILLJJ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAI..{foited Sta~ Court of Appea\i, 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEPHEN F. VANSICKLE, 

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. 92-7025 

(D.C. No. CV- 91-190-S) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

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

Claimant Stephen F. Vansickle appeals the district court's 

order affirming a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (Secretary) that Mr. Vansickle is not disabled. Because 

we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) misapplied the 

Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. §404, subpt. P, app . 2 

* 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 . 

** 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: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 1 
(the grids), we vacate the district court's judgment and order 

that the matter be remanded for further proceedings. 

Claimant, a forty-five year old male with a high school 

education, applied for disability benefits based on his hear t 

trouble, breathing problems, loss of energy, post traumatic stress 

disorder, and back pain. The ALJ found that although claimant 

suffered severe impairments which prevented him from returning to 

his prior employment in the construction industry, he remained 

capable of performing sedentary work and thus was not disabled. 

The Appeals Council denied claimant's request for review of this 

determination, and the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma affirmed. 

A disability determination will be upheld if it is supported 

by substantial evidence. Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human 

Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1497 (10th Cir. 1992 ). "Substantial 

evidence" is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. 

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971 ) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. 

v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Such a determination may be 

reversed, however, for the failure to apply a legal standard 

correctly . Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1987 ) ; 

Byron v . Heckler, 742 F.2d 1232, 1235 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Claimant first contends that the ALJ's finding is unsupported 

by substantial evidence because it ignores claimant's testimony 

that his back pain prevents him from sitting or standing f o r more 

than fifteen minutes at a time. Claimant argues that the effect 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 2 
of his pain should have been evaluated pursuant to Luna v. Bowen, 

834 F.2d 161, 165-66 (10th Cir. 1987). 

In Luna, we held that once a claimant has shown the existence 

of a pain-producing impairment and a loose nexus between such 

impairment and the claimant's alleged pain, an ALJ may not simply 

rely on objective medical data to determine whether the claimant 

suffers from disabling pain. Id. at 164-65. Here, in finding Mr. 

Vansickle's allegations of pain unsupported, the ALJ did not 

simply rest his decision on the absence of objective medical 

evidence. Instead, the ALJ looked to physicians' opinions 

regarding claimant's functional capacity, his lack of medication, 

and his response to treatment, in addition to the dearth of 

objective medical findings. R. II at 14. The ALJ also relied 

on the guidelines set forth in Soc. Sec. Rul. 88-13, which 

identify nonmedical evidence to be considered when evaluating a 

claimant's subjective complaints of pain. Thus we find that the 

ALJ evaluated claimant's complaints of pain in accordance with our 

opinion in Luna. 

Claimant's treatment history undermines his claim that he is 

disabled by back pain. After rupturing a disc in 1987, claimant 

was given conservative therapy and returned to his position as a 

construction superintendent, where he was able to lift over 100 

pounds, operate backhoes and loaders, and stand, sit, and walk 

without restriction. Between 1987 and October 2, 1989, there is 

no evidence that claimant received any treatment, took medication, 

or visited a physician for his back condition. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 3 
When applying for disability benefits in March 1989, claimant 

did not list his previously ruptured disk as a disabling 

condition. It was only after he was refused benefits for his 

heart and breathing problems in July 1989 that he identified his 

back problem as disabling. When examined by consulting physician 

Dr. Strom in May 1989, claimant simply characterized his back 

problem as "occasional stiffness." 

Finally, the objective medical evidence does not support 

claimant's claim of disabling back pain. Dr. Strom's examination 

did not reveal any atrophy or physical restrictions attributable 

to claimant's history of a ruptured disk. Dr. Rowlan, who 

examined claimant in October 1989 , diagnosed his back problem as a 

chronic L-S strain which could be treated through an exercise 

program and anti-inflammatories. The physician's report did not 

indicate that claimant's activities should be restricted. We find 

that the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's 

conclusion that claimant is not disabled by pain. 

Mr. Vansickle argues that the ALJ erred in relying on the 

grids when he presented evidence of several nonexertional 

impairments. When a claimant's impairments are exertional in 

nature, the Secretary may use the grids to determine conclusively 

whether the claimant is disabled. We have repeatedly held, 

however, that the grids may not be so used when a claimant suffers 

nonexertional impairments as well. See. e . g., Talbot v. Heckler, 

814 F.2d 1456, 1460 (10th Cir. 1987); Channel v. Heckler, 747 F . 2d 

577, 580-81 (10th Cir. 1984). Rather, the ALJ must evaluate 

whether a claimant's nonexertional impairments significantly 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 4 
restrict the range of work otherwise available within the 

claimant's exertional classification. Channel, 747 F.2d at 582. 

In making this assessment, if substantial evidence 

establishes that the claimant's nonexertional impairments will 

have a negligible effect on the range of jobs available, the grids 

may be used to determine the claimant's disability status. Id.; 

Talbot, 814 F.2d at 1465 . If, however, the nonexertional 

impairments will further restrict a claimant's ability to perform 

the full range of jobs in a particular category, the fact finder 

"must give 'full consideration' to 'all the relevant facts,' [20 

C.F.R. §404, subpt. P,] App. 2, § 200.00(e) (2), including expert 

vocational testimony if necessary, in determining whether [the 

claimant] is or is not disabled." Channel, 747 F.2d at 583 . 

Here, the ALJ specifically found that claimant suffers from 

two nonexertional impairments: postural limitations, including 

the inability to repetitively bend, stoop or squat; and 

environmental restrictions, including the inability to work around 

respiratory irritants. R. II at 14. The ALJ then found, however, 

that claimant could perform "the full range of sedentary work;" 

that "the record fails to establish a nonexertional 

impairment(s) which would further limit his ability to engage in 

sedentary work;" and that, based on the grids, the claimant was 

not disabled. Id. at 14-15. 

The record does not contain substantial evidence to support a 

conclusion that claimant can perform the full range of jobs 

included within the "sedentary" classification. As recognized by 

the ALJ, objective medical evidence demonstrates that claimant has 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 5 
a respiratory ailment and a chronic L-S back strain, imposing 

both environmental and postural limitations on the range of jobs 

for which he is exertionally qualified. Although a vocational 

expert testified at the hearing, the ALJ failed to question such 

expert as to the percentage of sedentary jobs which could 

accommodate claimant's nonexertional limitations. Instead, the 

ALJ merely instructed the expert to "assume" that claimant was 

capable of performing sedentary work. 

Because the record contains no information whether claimant's 

nonexertional impairments significantly limit the range of jobs 

available to him, the ALJ erred in applying the grids conclusively 

to determine that claimant is not disabled. The cause must 

therefore be remanded for a determination whether, considering 

his nonexertional impairments, there remains sufficient work in 

the national 1 economy that claimant can perform. Our resolution 

of this issue obviates the need to address claimant's third 

argument concerning the hypothetical questions posed to the 

vocational expert. 

1 Vansickle also argues that the ALJ should have considered the 

effect of his post traumatic stress disorder and disabling pain as 

nonexertional impairments. The record contains substantial 

evidence, however, to support the ALJ's determination that these 

impairments did not impose significant limitations on the 

claimant's ability to work. 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 6 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is VACATED and the cause REMANDED for 

further proceedings. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-7025 Document: 010110152694 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 7