Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05190/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05190-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teddy C. Coffee
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUN 2 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TEDDY C. COFFEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary 

of Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-5190 

) (D.C. No. 89-C-517-B) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BRORBY, 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 Teddy c. Coffee appeals from an order of the 

district court affirming the Secretary's decision denying his 

application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. 

We affirm. 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 1 
Background 

Mr. Coffee submitted an application for disability benefits 

on January 15, 1987, alleging an onset date of December 15, 1986. 

This application was subsequently denied and Mr. Coffee requested 

a hearing. On February 26, 1988, an administrative law judge 

(ALJ) issued a decision ruling Mr. Coffee was not disabled. On 

reconsideration, the Appeals Council remanded the case for further 

proceedings. A second hearing ensued, after which the ALJ 

affirmed his initial determination. This decision was adopted as 

the final decision of the Secretary. On appeal, the district 

court upheld the ruling. 

Mr. Coffee was born on February 29, 1936. He has a high 

school education. From December 1959 through December 1986, he 

worked in various capacities for Phillips Petroleum Company. Most 

recently, he was a trucking and shop supervisor. This position 

involved supervising thirty-two employees and being on-call seven 

days per week. In this capacity, Mr. Coffee was responsible for 

crude oil deliveries to pipeline .stations. 

Mr. Coffee's physical problems include heart disease, 

hypertension, diabetes, 1 d d . t . 1 ung amage, an angina pee oris. The 

record reveals he has undergone coronary artery bypass surgery 

twice. The first operation was performed in August 1983. A 

1 Angina 

the chest . 

by coronary 

1990). 

pectoris is defined as "severe constricting pain in 

. . due to ischemia of the heart muscle usually caused 

disease." Stedman's Medical Dictionary 79 (25th ed. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 2 
second surgery was performed approximately three years later. In 

addition, Mr. Coffee is an insulin dependent diabetic and is 

overweight. 

The record contains reports from Mr. Coffee's three main 

treating physicians. On March 29, 1987, Dr. Laxmichand Kamani 

submitted a report to a disability insurer indicating that 

although Mr. Coffee was disabled for his regular occupation, he 

was not disabled for all occupations. Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 266. 

Dr. Kamani stated Mr. Coffee could not lift more than fifteen to 

twenty pounds, and "prolonged standing and walking long distances 

without breaks [was] not recommended." Id. He indicated that 

Coffee's symptoms. Id. at 

that Mr. Coffee was a good 

job-related stress had worsened Mr. 

265. The report noted, however, 

candidate for rehabilitative services. 

Following a doctor's visit in June 1987, Dr. Kamani noted 

that Mr. Coffee was doing "extremely well". At that time he had 

no angina and was "feeling very good". Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 261. 

Two months later, however, Dr. Kamani signed a very short letter 

directed "to whom it may concern", stating that Mr. Coffee was 

disabled. The letter does not reference any additional medical 

reports or information. Of all the physicians involved in Mr. 

· Coffee's treatment, Dr . . Kamani is the most long-standing. 

In May 1987, Dr. Ronald Fortner submitted a report to the 

same insurer indicating that at that time, Mr. Coffee was totally 

disabled. Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 268. He identified a severe 

limitation of functional capacity and stated Mr. Coffee's "primary 

stress is having enough income to survive on." Id. at 267. Dr. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 3 
Fortner first saw Mr. Coffee in December 1986 and, according to 

the medical reports in the record, saw him three more times, with 

the last examination occurring in March 1987. There are no 

reports in the record from Dr. Fortner after that time. 

Dr. Stan DeFehr submitted responses to interrogatories in 

December 1987 which discussed Mr. Coffee's coronary artery 

disease. Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 291. The interrogatory answers 

stated Mr. Coffee could lift or carry twenty pounds on a frequent 

basis and could sit a total of six hours in an eight hour workday. 

In addition, Dr. DeFehr performed a treadmill test in September of 

1987 which indicated Mr. Coffee had good exercise capacity. No 

angina was present, and Mr. Coffee was able to complete Step IV of 

the test. Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 279. 

Dr. Eduardo Coligado 

March 1987. After taking 

examined Mr. Coffee for the agency in 

an extensive patient history, Dr. 

Coligado diagnosed hypertensive cardiovascular disease, type II 

diabetes mellitus, and obesity. He did not comment on Mr. 

Coffee's ability to hold a job nor did he give his impressions of 

claimant's ability to deal with stress. Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 

231-32. 

Finally, psychologist Diane Williamson evaluated Mr. Coffee 

on September 21, 1988. She administered both the Minnesota 

Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Millon Behavioral Health 

Inventory. 

man who is 

She identified Mr. Coffee as an "acutely distressed 

psychologically unable to cope with the stresses of 

Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 333. Dr. Williamson 

was not capable of coping with the demands of 

4 

daily living." 

concluded he 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 4 
employment otherwise within his physical capabilities due to his 

reaction to stress. Id. 

On appeal, Mr. Coffee argues substantial evidence does not 

support the Secretary's decision to deny benefits because the ALJ 

failed to consider his nonexertional stress impairment and 

inappropriately rejected the opinions of his treating physicians. 

Discussion 

This court's review is limited to determining whether the 

Secretary's findings are supported by substantial evidence and 

whether correct legal standards were applied. Bernal v. Bowen, 

851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence "is such 

evidence that a reasonable mind 

support the conclusion reached 

Sullivan, 931 F.2d 695, 697 (10th 

might accept as adequate to 

by the Secretary." Pacheco v. 

Cir. 1991). In determining 

whether substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision in 

this case, we have examined the entire record. See Williams v. 

Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Mr. Coffee's main argument on appeal is that the ALJ ignored 

opinions from his treating physicians concluding that he is 

disabled. See Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 711 (10th Cir. 

1989)(Secretary must give substantial weight to the opinion of the 

treating physician unless good cause is shown for rejecting it.); 

Williams, 844 F.2d at 758 (treating physician's opinion may be 

disregarded only if specific, legitimate reasons are given). 

Because we hold the ALJ did not ignore or otherwise 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 5 
inappropriately reject these opinions, we decline to adopt this 

argument. 

The ALJ's decision states he was "mindful of the opinions of 

Ors. Kamani, Fortner, and DeFehr .... " Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 

12. As the Secretary notes, the opinions of these physicians are 

inconsistent. While Dr. Kamani stated in one brief letter that 

Mr~ Coffee was disabled, the vast majority of his medical reports 

indicate Mr. 2 Coffee could perform sedentary work. Dr. DeFehr's 

report indicated Mr. Coffee had no angina after significant 

physical exertion and did very well in the treadmill test. 

In addition, although Mr. Coffee reported continued chest 

pains into 1988, his physicians determined they were esphageal 

rather than the result of angina. The ALJ noted all of these 

findings in his decision. The record simply does not support the 

conclusion that all the treating physicians determined Mr. Coffee 

was disabled. Furthermore, even to the extent one could interpret 

the record to support Mr. Coffee's argument that his treating 

physicians determined he was totally disabled, the ALJ cited 

2 

Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 

pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying 

articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. 

Although a sedentary job is defined as one which 

involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and 

standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. 

Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required 

occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a), 416.967(a) (1990). 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 6 
specific reasons, based on the medical record, for rejecting these 

conclusions. 

Mr. Coffee also asserts that the ALJ failed to consider his 

nonexertional stress impairment in determining he was not 

disabled. "Claimants with heart disease may be effectively 

disabled by the effect of stress." Clark v. Bowen, 668 F. Supp. 

1357, 1360 (N.D. Cal. 1987); see also Mitchell v. Sullivan, 925 

F.2d 247, 249-50 (8th Cir. 199l)(ALJ's determination that heart 

patient could perform in job with moderate stress was not 

supported by substantial evidence); Schmidt v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 

117, 119 (7th Cir. 1990)("The award of benefits to a person 

disabled because the emotional stress of working would exacerbate 

his heart condition would not even be novel.")(citing Stewart v. 

Heckler, 730 F.2d 1065 (6th Cir. 1984)). 

In such a case, however, "the dangers of work-related stress 

to the claimant's health must be documented by his treating 

physicians or at least supported in some meaningful way by the 

claimant's own testimony." Clark, 668 F. Supp. at 1360. A 

claimant is not disabled if he is capable of working in a less 

stressful position than that which he held previously. See 

Schmidt, 914 F.2d at 119. 

Here, the ALJ determined that although Mr. Coffee could not 

return to his previous employment, he was capable of performing 

less stressful, sedentary, jobs. 3 In this regard, the ALJ relied 

3 Thus, the ALJ made his decision at the fifth step of the 

sequential evaluation outlined in the regulations accompanying the 

Social Security Act for use in making disability determinations. 

See Sorenson, 888 F.2d at 710 (outlining five-step procedure). 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 7 
on the testimony of vocational expert Teresa Manning, who stated 

that Mr. Coffee had transferable skills which could be applied in 

less stressful sedentary positions such as receiving clerk, 

shipping clerk, or trucking dispatcher. Rec. Vol. I doc. 3 at 78. 

She testified these jobs were available in sufficient numbers in 

the Oklahoma area.

4 Id. at 81. 

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that the 

combination of Mr. Coffee's impairments do not render him disabled 

to perform a low stress job. Apart from Dr. Williamson's opinion, 

which was based on one meeting and two tests, there is no 

physician commentary in the record regarding Mr. Coffee's ability 

to perform in a low stress position in light of his impairments. 

We agree with the ALJ that the medical evidence does not support a 

finding of disability. 5 

4 This court has stated that "when a claimant suffers from both 

exertional and nonexertional limitations, and the exertional 

limitations in and of themselves do not establish disability, the 

[Medical-Vocational Guidelines) provide no more than a framework 

for determining disability". Williams, 844 F.2d at 752. In this 

case, it was incumbent upon the ALJ to consider the impact of Mr. 

Coffee's nonexertional limitations in determining whether he could 

perform sedentary work. See id. 

5 Contrary to claimant's assertions, it is not "uncontroverted" 

that Mr. Coffee is unable to engage in any interpersonal relations 

and is "incapable of social functioning." See Appellant's Brief 

at 17-18. Mr. Coffee admits he socializes on a regular basis and 

there is no medical evidence in the record that he is unable to 

function socially. 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 8 
, . 

For all these reasons, the decision of the Secretary as 

upheld by the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-5190 Document: 010110128237 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 9