No. 95-3491

Joseph Evans, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Shirley S. Chater, * Commissioner, Social Security * Administration, * * Appellee. *

Submitted: March 13, 1996 Filed: May 30, 1996

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HEANEY, Circui t Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Joseph Evans, a black male born Nove mber 17, 1955, has a high school equivalency and prior work experience as a truck driver. He was hit by a truck in May 1982 and suffered severe injuries t o his right lower back and hip. He was treated for this injury, and in 1984, he returned to work as a truck driver for three years. He has not worked since that time.

In Januar y 1992, Evans filed a claim for Social Security disability insu rance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, alleging a n ina bilityto work beginning April 15, 1989. He contended that he wa s dis abled due to chronic, lower back pain, arthritis, uncontrolle d hypertension, chest pain, headaches, and depress ion. His claim was denied initially and on reconsideration.

### 2

A hearing was held be fore an administrative law judge (ALJ) on August 26, 1993. The ALJ found that Evans was unable to perform his past work as a truck dri ver, but that he could perform a full range of sedentary work

. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision. Evans sought review in the district court, which denied relief. He now appeals from tha t decision.

We hold t hat substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ's decision th at Evans was able to perform sedentary work at least until Se ptember 30, 1991, the date on which he last qualified fo r disabil ity-insured status. We have doubts, however, as to whether h e remained able to perform sedentary work after that date. We thus remand to the district court with directions to remand to the Secretary for a determinationof whether, after Septemer 30, 1991, Evans became eligible for SSI benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 1382.

The record, including Evans' medical history, supports the ALJ' s determination that Ev ans was not disabled within the meaning of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383d as a result of his 198 2 accident. Indeed, Ev ans returned to work as a truck driver and continued in that occupation until 1987. Beginning in 1990, however, Evans' physica l condition deteriorate d significantly. Since then, he has been in and out of the h ospital numerous times for high blood pressure and relate d complications. In May 1990, Evans was hospitali zed with chest pain and an elevated blood pressure of 200/150. Thallium stress tests revealed n o evidence of stress-induced ischemia (a deficiency of blood supply to the heart ) and other cardiac tests were essentially negative. He wa s discharged with directions to lose weight, to exercise, and to tak e medicat ionto control his blood pressure. His condition continued t o deteriorate after that date.

Evans wa s hospitalized again on January 26, 1992, with chest pain s and accelerated hypertension (200/140). He was not taking

### 3

any medication at the time and he was treated for high blood pressure, bac k problems, pain, and o besity. He complained of headaches during the fourday hospitalization and his discharge diagnosis included "uncontrolle d hypertension with headache." Tr. 437. He continued to have elevated bloo d pressure after his release: on June 16, 1992, his blood pressur e fluctuated greatly fr om 140/98 in the morning to 220/140 that evening; on July 1, 1992, it was 220/124; and on August 8, 1 992, he suffered from both hypertension and congestive heart failure.

Evans w as again hospitalized on May 25, 1993 with a blood pressur e of 160/130 and weighing 300 pounds. He was discharged after his bloo d pressure reportedly responded to medication. OnJuly 6, 1993, however, an int ernal medicine specialist hospitalized Evans because of increasin g angina and blood pressure that was not controlle d by increased medication. This condition contin ued, including a week-long hospitalization in August 1993 for malignant hy pertension, documented coronary atherosclerosis, and angina pectoris. On October 11, 1993, Evans und erwent angioplasty and was discharged from the hospital five days later.

Evans was readmitted on December 22, 1993 for chest pain , ath erosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and glucose intolerance

. After an adjustment in his medication, Evans was discharged only to b e readmitted on January 24, 1994, again for hypert ension and atherosclerotic heart disease.

It must be noted that because the he aring before the ALJ was held on August 26, 1993, the ALJ did not consider Evans' medical history after tha t date. The Appeals Council, on the other hand, considered the subsequent history, but it deter mined that it did not affect the ALJ's finding of no disability. We question the Appeals Council's decision.

### 4 The record reveals that Evans now su ffers, and has suffered for some time, from significan t nonexertional impairments: hypertension, obesity, pai n, and atherosclerotic heart disease. Thus, the question is whethe r these impairments at any time after September 30, 1991 became severe enoug h to have prevented Evans from performing the full range of activities liste d in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines found in Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1501-1599 ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines can be use d to determine disability, provided that the nonexertiona l impairments do not significantly diminish the cl aimant's residual capacity to perform the activities listed in them. Reed v. Sullivan , 988 F.2d 812, 816 (8th Cir. 1993); Thompson v. Bowen , 850 F.2d 346, 349-50 (8th Cir

. 19 88). Here, however, where there is substantial evidence as t o significant nonexertional limitations during the period in question, the Guidelines are not applicable.

Rather, on remand a vocational expert should be called and asked a proper hypothetical question detailing Evans' me dical and activity history fromSept ember 30, 1991 to the present. O'Leary v. Schweiker , 710 F.2 d 1334, 1343 (8th Cir. 1983) (hypothetical must pr ecisely set out all of the claimant's impairments); Cole v. Harris , 641 F.2 d 613, 615-16 (expert must focus on individual complainant's capacity to wo rk). The expert should be requested to give an opinion as to whether, in light of his nonexertional impairments, Evans was able to perform any jobs in the local or national economyon a full-time basis from September 30, 1991 through the date of the Appeals Council's decision. Easter v. Bowen , 867 F.2d 1128, 1130 (8th Cir. 1989) (claimant must be able to perform the requisite physical acts on a full-time basis in a sometimes competitive and stressful environment of the working world); McCoy v. Schweiker , 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 198 2) (same). On remand, the Secretary and the claimant should b e permit ted to present current medical reports of treating or consultin g doctors.

### 5 We therefore reverse the district court's denial of relief and remand to t he district court with directions to remand to the Secretary fo r disposition consistent with this opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.