Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07025/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee
Brenda A. Willet
Appellant

Document Text:

,. 

P 1 LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoire!d Scares <:Durr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

~f )I_ .i. 1 1990 

!tOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk BRENDA A. WILLET, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-7025 

(D.C. No. 88-293-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, 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 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's affirmance of the 

Secretary's decision denying plaintiff supplemental security 

* 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: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 1 
•' 

income benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in June, 1987, 

asserting she was disabled due to back and kidney problems. 1 

After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (A.L.J.) determined 

that plaintiff's back problem, diagnosed as lumbosacral syndrome, 

did not impair her ability to perform her past work as a laundry 

operator. 2 Further, the A.L.J. determined that, while plaintiff 

"doubtlessly experienced some discomfort," her pain was not 

disabling. The A.L.J., therefore, determined plaintiff was not 

disabled and denied benefits. 

Plaintiff requested the Appeals Council review the A.L.J. 's 

decision. Along with t-Ois request, plaintiff submitted additional 

evidence from plaintiff's treating physician. The Appeals Council 

denied the request for review, determining that even in light of 

the treating physician's evaluation, plaintiff retained the 

residual functional capacity for light or sedentary work and, 

therefore, was not disabled. Because the Appeals Council denied 

plaintiff's request for review, the A.L.J.'s decision became the 

final decision of the Secretary. 

1 Although plaintiff claimed she was disabled due to both back 

and kidney problems, plaintiff failed to assert any evidence 

concerning a kidney impairment. 

2 The A.L.J. found that plaintiff retained the functional 

capacity to perform her past work as a laundry operator, a job 

plaintiff held from 1964-75. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions 

on appeal, the A.L.J. did not determine plaintiff remained capable 

of performing her previous work as a nursing home attendant, a job 

plaintiff held from 1985-87, which included some laundry work, but 

which also required greater overall strength than plaintiff's job 

as a laundry operator. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 2 
Plaintiff commenced this action in federal court, challenging 

the Secretary's denial of benefits. The district court upheld the 

Secretary's determination. Plaintiff appeals, asserting the 

Secretary's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and 

the Secretary failed to apply correct legal standards. 

The Secretary's determination will be upheld if it is 

supported by substantial evidence, which is defined as such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion. See,~, Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 

(10th Cir. 1987). Failure to apply correct legal standards, as 

well as lack of substantial evidence supporting the Secretary's 

determination, will be grounds for reversal. See id. 

In determining that plaintiff retained the functional 

capacity to perform her past work as a laundry operator, the 

A.L.J. relied on the reports of three consulting physicians. The 

treating physician's evaluation, however, contradicted the 

opinions of the consulting physicians and indicated plaintiff was 

not capable of performing the exertional requirements of her prior 

work activity. The opinion of a treating physician must be 

accorded greater weight than the consulting physicians, unless the 

Secretary asserts specific, legitimate reasons to disregard the 

treating physician's opinion. See Reyes v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 242, 

245 (10th Cir. 1988); Frey, 816 F.2d at 513. 

The Appeals Council, in denying plaintiff's request to review 

the A.L.J.'s determination, considered the treating physician's 

opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(b), ruling that even if 

plaintiff's residual functional capacity limited her to light or 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 3 
,. 

sedentary work, as indicated by the treating physician's 

evaluation, "a denial would still be directed by the Medical 

Vocational Guidelines." The treating physician's evaluation 

further indicated, however, that, in addition to her exertional 

limitations, plaintiff's residual functional capacity was 

"severely" limited by headaches and back pain. Because the 

medical-vocational guidelines measure only exertional limitations, 

t he guidelines may not be applied mechanically where a claimant 

suffers nonexertional impairments, such as pain, which further 

limit her ability to perform work activities. See,~' Gossett 

v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 806 (10th Cir. 1988); Frey, 816 F.2d at 

512-13. 

The A.L.J. had determined that plaintiff's complaints of 

disabling pain were not credible and, therefore, implicitly 

determined that plaintiff's pain did not further impair 

plaintiff's residual functional capacity. While ordinarily a 

reviewing court defers to an A.L.J . 's credibility determinations 

concerning a claimant's subjective complaints of pain, see, ~' 

Gossett, 862 F.2d at 807, the A.L.J. in this case did not consider 

the treating physician's evaluation when the A.L.J. made this 

credibility determination. 

have a reasonable nexus to 

In evaluating complaints of pain which 

an objectively established medical 

condition, the A.L.J. must evaluate ~laintiff's complaints of pain 

in light of all relevant evidence. See Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 

161, 163, 165-66 (10th Cir. 1987); see also Huston v. Bowen, 838 

F.2d 1125, 1130 (10th Cir. 1988)(the A.L.J. must consider a 

treating physician's assessment of a claimant's subjective 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 4 
complaints of pain); Gatson v. Bowen, 838 F.2d 442, 447-48 (10th 

Cir. 1988)(objective medical evidence of disabling pain can 

include the treating physician's clinical assessment of the 

credibility of a claimant's complaints of pain). Because the 

A.L.J. did not have the benefit of the treating physician's 

evaluation when he made his determination concerning the 

credibility of plaintiff's complaints of disabling' pain, the 

district court's decision affirming the Secretary's denial of 

benefits is reversed, and the case is remanded for the Secretary's 

consideration of plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain in 

light of the treating physician's evaluation. If the complaints 

of disabling pain are found to be credible, mechanical application 

of the medical-vocational guidelines, which the Appeals Council 

appears to have invoked in denying plaintiff's request for review, 

would be inappropriate. See Huston, 838 F.2d at 1131. 

On appeal, plaintiff also argues that the Secretary's 

determination that plaintiff was literate was not supported by 

substantial evidence. Although the Secretary's literacy finding 

was not relevant to the Secretary's determination that plaintiff 

remained capable of performing her past work as a laundry 

operator, it may become relevant on remand. In reviewing the 

Secretary's findings, an appellate court may not reweigh the 

evidence or substitute its judgment for the judgment of the 

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

The Secretary's determination may be reversed, however, where 

there is a mere scintilla of evidence supporting the determination 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 5 
or the evidence supporting the determination is overwhelmed by 

other evidence in the record. See id. 

The A.L.J. 's determination that plaintiff was literate 

appears to have been based upon the notation of an agency 

interviewer that he observed no difficulties with plaintiff's 

ability to read or write. At the hearing, however, plaintiff 

testified that, although she had completed the seventh grade, she 

could neither read nor write. This testimony was supported by 

three letters written by plaintiff's friends, relatives, and 

neighbors. Because the Secretary's determination that plaintiff 

was literate was overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, the 

Secretary's determination that plaintiff was literate was not 

supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, is reversed. 

See id. 

Plaintiff also asserts that the A.L.J. failed to fulfill his 

duty to develop the record concerning both plaintiff's prior work 

experience and possible psychological factors complicating 

plaintiff's physical condition. While an A.L.J. has a duty "'to 

inform himself about facts relevant to his decision and to learn 

the claimant's own version of those facts,'" Dixon v. Heckler, 811 

F . 2d 506, 510 (10th Cir. 1987)(quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 

U.S. 458, 471 and n.l (1983)(Brennan, J., concurring)), a claimant 

is responsible for raising any matter upon which the claimant is 

relying for an award of benefits, see Garcia v. Califano, 625 F.2d 

354, 356 (10th Cir. 1980). While an A.L.J. 's duty to develop the 

record is heightened when a claimant is proceeding pro se, see 

Dixon, 811 F.2d at 510, in the instant case, plaintiff was 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 6 
• 

represented by counsel at the hearing before the A.L.J. Upon 

careful review of the record, we determine the A.L.J. did not 

violate his duty to develop the record. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma affirming the Secretary's denial of 

benefits is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the district 

court with directions to remand to the Secretary for consideration 

of plaintiff's complaints of disabling pain in light of the 

treating physician's evaluation. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-7025 Document: 010110038275 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 7