Opinion ID: 566676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: disability insurance benefits

Text: 7 Regarding the claim for disability insurance benefits, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he became disabled prior to the time his insured status expired and that he remained disabled until at least one year prior to his making application for benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(2)(E); see Mullis v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 991, 994 (6th Cir.1988) (citation omitted). In plaintiff's case, the relevant period is from March 1980 to June 1986. Hospital reports indicate that plaintiff had a severe car accident in 1974. Although plaintiff returned to work afterwards for approximately four years and apparently sought no medical attention from the time of his accident in 1974 until 1987, the Secretary nonetheless determined that plaintiff was disabled prior to March 1980 and that plaintiff could no longer perform his past job. As a result, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the existence of jobs in the economy shifted to the Secretary. See Varley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 820 F.2d 777, 779 (6th Cir.1987). We find that the Secretary met this burden by proffering the testimony of a vocational expert. See id. Importantly, the Secretary found that plaintiff's disability did not continue through June 1986. Reviewing the medical evidence presented by Doctors Sajadi and Barber, and the hypothetical questions asked of the vocational expert, we find substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination that plaintiff could have performed other jobs in the national economy from 1980 to 1986, based on plaintiff's residual capacity, age education, and past work experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (1991). In making this determination, we note that no evidence exists in the record to suggest that plaintiff suffered from other, nonexertional impairments (e.g., severe depression) during this period. Accordingly, we affirm the Secretary's decision to deny disability benefits.