Case Name: Margaret R. KINSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-06-03
Citations: 708 F.2d 1058
Docket Number: No. 82-3064
Parties: Margaret R. KINSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 708
Pages: 1058–1066

Head Matter:
Margaret R. KINSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 82-3064.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1983.
Decided June 3, 1983.
Swygert, Senior Circuit Judge, sitting by designation, dissented and filed an opinion.
John P. McGinnis (argued), Bedford Heights, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Carolyn Watts Allen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Daniel Mulvanny (argued), Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellee.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Circuit Judge, KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge, and SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge.
Honorable Luther M. Swygert, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is another of the many cases involving disability based upon back problems and arthritis; this in a now 57-year old female. She had previously worked as a sales clerk and department manager and when the store closed, she began collecting unemployment benefits. She contends in this application that she became disabled prior to the date of the closing of the store — but she certified to the Ohio's Bureau of Worker's compensation that she was available for work for a period of 13 weeks thereafter.
None of the judges on the panel had any doubt that she had some genuine problems. The question, of course, which was resolved against her by the Administrative Law Judge, the Appeals Council and the District Court was whether or not these problems were disabling to the point of preventing her from doing substantial work.
Appellant presented evidence from at least five doctors who considered her disabled. On the other hand, the government relies upon reports by three doctors and a distinctly adverse opinion of the Administrative Law Judge in its contention that there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary's adverse holding. We quote hereafter the dispositive paragraph of the ALJ's opinion:
The evidence shows that the claimant has degenerative disc disease and arthritis. She had right renal calculus and a bladder neck contracture in 1978 but this no longer causes her any problems. She is capable of doing numerous tasks around the house despite the fact that she complains of being unable to remain in one position more than approximately 12 minutes. Although she claims that she was unable to work in 1977, she filed for unemployment in 1978 exhibiting the fact that she felt that she was capable of working at that time. Her complaints of severe pain, as has been previously indicated, are not credible. It appears that she retains the residual functional capacity to lift up to 20 pounds, with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds, as well as a significant capacity to sit (she sat throughout the hearing which lasted IV2 hours without any apparent discomfort), stand and walk. Therefore, she has the residual functional capacity to return to her position as a sales clerk. She must, therefore, be determined not to be disabled within the meaning of the Act, as amended.
Our review of the medical evidence in this case demonstrates that the case has been decided upon substantially conflicting medical opinions. The majority of our panel would not have resolved this conflict as did the ALJ, if we were empowered to find the facts in this case. Our question, however, is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the adverse decision reached by the Secretary and we find it impossible on this record to say there is no such evidence.
The judgment of the District Court affirming the Secretary is hereby affirmed.