Court Opinion

ID: 9482554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:54:05.305671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:04.130044
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reason that there is not substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s findings that Baker retains the residual functional capacity to engage in her past work.
First, the AU determined that Baker’s past relevant work was classified as “medium” work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c) (1991). Although the AU did not state the basis for this finding, it is consistent with the U.S. Department of Labor’s classification for grocery store clerk and fiberglass laborer jobs. See U.S. Department of Labor, Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, at 74, 202, 473 (1981). The majority, however, has made its own “finding” that Baker’s past relevant work is defined as either light or sedentary work based on selected testimony in the record from Baker that she lifted no more than ten pounds. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a), (b) (1991). By relying on this testimony, the court, in effect, has rejected other information in the record without explaining why other such testimony is more or less credible. For example, Social Security Ruling No. 83-10, interpreting the walking and standing requirements for “light” work provides: “the full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday.” Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 46, 51 (West Supp.1991). The majority has not evaluated whether Baker could meet this requirement. See Carter v. Sullivan, 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam). In addition, Baker testified she did not know the weight of the rollers she lifted in her job at the fiberglass boat company. (Admin.R. at 109.) She also stated she could not return to the shirt factory because she could not sit for the required time, {Id. at 77), or carry the load of shirts, {Id. at 110.) By determining that Baker’s past relevant work was either light or sedentary, the majority has engaged in factfinding, a role this court has stated is reserved for the Secretary. See O’Leary v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 1334, 1342 (8th Cir.1983).
Step four of the sequential analysis used in Social Security disability determinations requires the AU to review the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e) (1991); Kirby v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir.1991). It is the duty of the AU to fully investigate and make explicit findings as to the physical and mental demands of a claimant’s past relevant work. The AU is then to compare those demands with what the claimant herself is capable of doing before he determines that she is able to perform her past relevant work. Groeper v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir.1991); Nimick v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 887 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir.1989).
The Social Security Administration explains the AU’s responsibility in determining a claimant’s ability to perform her past relevant work as follows:
The decision as to whether the claimant retains the functional capacity to perform past work which has current relevance has far-reaching implications and must be developed and explained fully in the disability decision. Since this is an important and, in some instances, a controlling issue, every effort must be made to secure evidence that resolves the issue as clearly and explicitly as circumstances permit.
*557Soc.Sec.Rep. Soc.Sec. Ruling No. 82-62, Serv. 809, 812 (West 1983).
It is for the AU to develop the record to point out any discrepancy between the physical requirements of jobs as they exist in the national economy and the way in which they are actually performed.
In this case the Secretary classified Baker’s past relevant work as medium work without any such. analysis. To have the residual functional capacity to perform “medium work,” an individual must be able to lift or carry up to twenty-five pounds frequently and be able occasionally to lift up to fifty pounds. 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c) (1991). If the evidence does not support that Baker has the residual functional capacity to perform such work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that she has the residual functional capacity to do other kinds of work and that there are jobs available in the national economy which she can realistically perform. See Talbott v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 511, 514-15 (8th Cir.1987). By redefining Baker’s past relevant work as light or sedentary, the majority has avoided shifting the burden to the Secre-. tary to determine if there are jobs in the national economy which Baker can perform.
Even assuming the AU was incorrect in classifying Baker’s work as medium, I do not believe the evidence in the record as a whole supports that Baker can perform her past relevant work, even if defined as light or sedentary work. Baker’s employment history consists of three jobs performed for very short periods within the past fifteen years, totaling approximately one year of employment. Although the record does not contain an earnings record, Baker’s undisputed testimony was that she worked for two months reading and repairing water meters, four months at a fiberglass boat factory rolling out fiberglass, and seven months as a stocking clerk at a grocery store. She also worked in a Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program cleaning roads for an undisclosed period.
The CETA employment and the meter reader jobs should not even be considered as part of her past relevant work. First, under 20 C.F.R. § 416.965(a) (1991), the Secretary considers prior work experience when it was done within the past fifteen years, lasted long enough to learn the job, and constituted substantial gainful activity. According to the Department of Labor, the preparation time required to learn the job of meter reader or repairer (Titles 209.567-010 and 710.684-034) is three to six months. U.S. Department of Labor, Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, at 75, 95, 473 (1981). Thus, Baker’s two-month tenure on the job would not have been long enough to be considered prior work experience. Secondly, the CETA job was a training program. Generally, activities in the nature of therapy or school are not considered to be substantial gainful activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.-972(c) (1991); DeRienzis v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 352, 354 (2d Cir.1984).
As for Baker’s other jobs, whether defined as medium, light, or sedentary work, Baker testified that she could not continue to perform those jobs. Baker testified that she could not continue working at the grocery store because she had problems bending to lift a ten-pound bag of potatoes. (Admin.R. at 74-75.) She also reported to the consulting physician that although she was laid off at the Ranger Boat Company after three months, she thought it was because she could not do the “rather heavy work in the assembly of boats.” (Id. at 206.) Neither the AU nor the majority point to evidence in the record to show that she can continue to perform those or similar jobs in the national economy.
In my view, the AU’s reasons for discrediting Baker’s complaints of disabling pain are not supported by the record. The AU noted that Baker did not receive regular medical treatment. First, Baker testified that she saw three physicians: Dr. Charles Ledbetter, Dr. Bob Aarons, and Dr. Roland Bailey. Baker’s medical records from these doctors are not contained in the administrative record. Second, Baker and her mother both testified that she did not go more often to the doctor *558or obtain medication because she could not afford to do so. An AU must consider a claimant’s allegation that she has not used medications because of a lack of finances. Dover v. Bowen, 784 F.2d 335, 337 (8th Cir.1986).
The AU also noted that Baker’s daily activities were not consistent with one who could not engage in her past relevant work. The record does not support such a finding. The AU found that Baker did most of the housework, some of the laundry and cooking; raised two children; drove short distances; read the newspaper and the Bible; and watched television. Baker’s daily routine, according to her testimony and supported by that of her husband and mother, consisted of washing a few dishes for fifteen or twenty minutes and vacuuming for five or ten minutes before needing to sit down. (Admin.R. at 79-80; 113-16.)
We have often noted that an ability to do light housecleaning or to drive a car does not necessarily indicate an ability to perform gainful employment. See Easter v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1128, 1130 (8th Cir.1989); Yawitz v. Weinberger, 498 F.2d 956, 960 (8th Cir.1974) (per curiam). Baker’s performance of household duties, during which she must rest every ten or twenty minutes, does not support a conclusion that she is capable of working “day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.” McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir.1982) (citation omitted). See also Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1989) (ability to do light housework with assistance, attend church, or visit with friends on phone does not qualify as ability to do substantial gainful activity).
The AU also pointed to the lack of objective evidence and diagnoses to support Baker’s complaints of pain. Again, this court has cited repeatedly the proposition that the AU may not disregard the claimant’s complaints of pain solely because the objective medical evidence did not fully support them. See, e.g., O’Leary, 710 F.2d at 1342. Here, there is a paucity of objective evidence. The minimal extent to which Baker exerts herself and the simple tasks she performs on a daily basis, however, support her contentions of pain, and does not demonstrate that she can engage in what was previously described as her past work.
Finally, although Baker’s mental condition alone is not so severe as to warrant a finding of disability, substantial evidence fails to support the AU’s finding that her mental condition did not limit her ability to perform the full range of medium work. The consulting psychologist’s report states clearly that Baker’s ability to make occupational adjustments and personal-social adjustments was “seriously limited, but not precluded.” The psychologist reported that Baker’s limitations included borderline to low average IQ; difficulty with planning and organizing; possible mental confusion; poor coping skills and poor general adjustment; difficulty with memory; and excessive anxiety in social situations. The psychologist concluded that Baker’s physical limitations restricted the amount and type of work she could do. This hardly paints a picture of a person who could perform the full range of medium work. Because there are nonexertional impairments significant enough to diminish the claimant’s residual functional capacity to perform the full range of work contemplated by the Medical-Vocational Guideline’s categories, the testimony of a vocational expert is required. See Thompson v. Bowen, 850 F.2d 346, 350 (8th Cir.1988).
Accordingly, in light of Baker’s pain and limited mental ability, both nonexertional impairments, I would remand to the Secretary for further development of the record, including vocational expert testimony as to the existence of work in the national economy which a person with Baker’s impairments can perform.