Opinion ID: 403713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Predicate findings

Text: 50 Claimant Holmes, age 32 at the time of the agency hearing, suffered a back injury in 1976 that precluded him from continuing his former work at a paper mill. After his second application for disability benefits Holmes was adjudged disabled for a time but was determined in 1977 to have regained the ability to perform substantial gainful employment. This determination was made on the basis of a physician's report that, after treatment, there was no reason Holmes could not resume some substantial work. No appeal was taken from this determination. Subsequently, Holmes was twice hospitalized and was seen by several other doctors because of back problems. He continues to suffer pain, he complains of vision problems and numbness, he undergoes four hours of traction per day, and he takes three drugs that potentially affect his mental acuteness. 51 In the hearing held in this third application for benefits, the ALJ found, based on the 1977 doctor's report saying that Holmes could return to work and the adjudication the same year that he was not disabled, that Holmes was capable of sedentary work. His age, experience (unskilled), and education (illiterate) 16 resulted in a not disabled determination under the grids. 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, App. 2 § 201.23. 52 The district court reversed and remanded, holding that the need for four hours of traction and the mental effects of the medication were nonexertional impairments, and therefore Holmes' case falls outside of the grid. We cannot agree fully. Although it is clear from the record that these matters potentially impose limitations on Holmes' ability to perform sedentary work, we cannot say with certainty that they rise to the level of nonexertional impairments or prevent a full range of sedentary work. No findings were made on these matters by the ALJ, so Holmes' case must be remanded. See Harrell v. Harris, 610 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding inadequate consideration by ALJ of need for therapy and the effects of medication). Because there is no evidence or findings on how these potential limitations in fact limit Holmes' work skills, however, we do not hold that the ALJ must decide the case outside the grid system; instead, the question of whether the grids apply must be reconsidered. See Ferguson v. Schweiker, 641 F.2d 243, 250 n.8 (5th Cir. 1981) (case should be remanded for agency consideration where record does not support a dispositive ruling ). 53 Holmes also complains that inadequate attention was given by the ALJ to his allegations of pain and to his post-1977 hospitalizations and physicians' reports. Although we need not decide whether these defects alone would warrant reconsideration of the case, we agree that the ALJ's treatment of these matters was abbreviated, and, inasmuch as this case must be substantially reconsidered on other grounds, on remand the ALJ should make a fresh determination of the extent of Holmes' current impairments and whether he meets the exertional requirements for sedentary work. 54 Claimant Jones, a former telephone installer and line repairman with a tenth grade education, age 52 at the time of his hearing, was found capable of light work and thus not disabled under § 202.11 of the grid regulations. Jones complains of back problems that cause pain and of a sinus condition and arthritis. He challenges the finding by the ALJ that he is capable of light work. 55 Jones' personal physician reported that Jones is totally disabled. Recent examinations by two other physicians, however, report that despite Jones' difficulties he is capable of light work as defined in the regulations. The ALJ was allowed to resolve this conflict in the medical evidence. Jones also contends that the ALJ did not consider his allegations of pain. Examination of the record discloses that pain was considered but discounted in the light of physicians' examinations. In particular, the fact that Jones' responses on physical examination were very much anticipatory and somewhat exaggerated, in the words of the ALJ, supports the ALJ's decision to discount Jones' allegations of pain. 56 Claimants Soesbe, Broz, and Little have not challenged in their briefs to this court or to the district court any of the agency's findings on matters predicate to application of the grid regulations. 17