Opinion ID: 566017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Benefits Review Act of 1984 and the ALJ's opinion:

Text: 6 In the Benefits Review Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(f), Congress established specific standards for the termination of disability benefits. Pursuant to the new standards, the Secretary may terminate disability benefits if substantial evidence demonstrates that: 7 (A) there has been any medical improvement in the individual's impairment or combination of impairments (other than medical improvement which is not related to the individual's ability to work), and(B) the individual is now able to engage in substantial gainful activity; ... 8 Sec. 423(f)(1). 9 The first part of the evaluation process, then, focuses on medical improvement. The implementing regulations define a medical improvement as any decrease in the medical severity of your impairment(s) which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision that you were disabled or continued to be disabled. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1594(b)(1). A determination of medical improvement must be based on changes (improvement) in the symptoms, signs, and/or laboratory findings associated with your impairment(s). And a medical improvement is only related to an individual's ability to work if there has been a decrease in the severity ... of the impairment(s) present at the time of the most recent favorable medical decision and an increase in your functional capacity to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1594(b)(3). 10 The second part of the evaluation process relates to ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. Here the implementing regulations incorporate many of the standards set forth in the regulations governing initial disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1594(b)(5) and (f)(7). The difference, of course, is that the ultimate burden of proof lies with the Secretary in termination proceedings. In evaluating ability to engage in substantial gainful activity, the Secretary considers, first, whether the claimant can perform past relevant work and, if not, whether the claimant can perform other work. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1594(f)(7) and (f)(8). 1 11 The ALJ evaluating Griego's case first examined the extensive medical evidence in the record. He found that the medical reports established status post lumbar fusion, times two, and depression. He further found substantial evidence of medical improvement related to ability to perform work. He concluded that Griego had the ability to perform sedentary work as of November 24, 1986, the date that Dr. Herbertson, then Griego's treating physician, found a full range of motion in her back and general improvement. He also cited to other medical reports, the opinions of her physicians, her reported daily activities, and the medications that she was then taking. He concluded that her residual functional capacity was consistent with her past relevant work as a telephone solicitor and receptionist. 12 The ALJ found no mental impairments that materially affected her ability to perform her past relevant work. He particularly relied on a March 31, 1988, report by Dr. Pennal, a board certified psychiatrist. Although a neurologist who examined Griego the same month diagnosed depression, Dr. Pennal found only suggestions of hypochondriacal neurosis. 13 The ALJ expressly considered Griego's subjective complaints of pain. He discounted her complaints, however, based on evidence that she took only non-aspirin pain reliever, attended a one and one-half hour Bible study once a week, worked on her GED for a short time, and exercised at the YMCA. The ALJ also noted that, while she stated at the hearing that someone else did her shopping, she told one of her doctors that she shopped for groceries herself. He concluded that neither the medical evidence nor Griego's own testimony established that her ability to function has been so severely impaired by pain, since November 24, 1986, as to preclude sedentary work.