Court Opinion

ID: 9489214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:09:09.976752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:24.076993
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The record fully supports Craze’s contention that he is entitled to disability benefits as of January 1, 1993. Contrary to the majority’s characterization, the record provides ample evidence that Cruze has difficulty standing or walking for prolonged periods of time. Yet, the ALJ ignored this evidence when he posed the hypothetical of limitations to the vocational expert. The ALJ similarly erred in concluding that Cruze could perform light work. As defined by the regulations, light work “requires a good deal of walking or standing.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). As the evidence in the record demonstrates, Cruze is unable to perform light work on a full-time basis. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the majority and would reverse the ALJ’s denial of disability benefits.
Dr. Austin, Craze’s treating physician, personally examined Cruze on several occasions and monitored his heart condition periodically. He stated that any significant degree of standing or walking would put Craze’s cardiac status at risk. Tr. at 280. This evidence alone is sufficient to require a finding of disability. The ALJ and the majority discredit Austin’s disability evaluation, however, largely because they consider it “inconsistent” with his earlier evaluations. The majority argues that, based on the results of the treadmill tests in February and July 1993, Austin had reported an improvement in Craze’s condition and that therefore his September disability evaluation is “difficult to accept.”
Dr. Austin’s opinions are consistent and the majority is grasping at straws to characterize them to the contrary. As evidenced by his quadruple coronary bypass operation in March of 1993, Craze’s cardiac condition clearly did not improve from February to March. Moreover, although the July treadmill test was negative for ischemia, Dr. Austin noted that interpretation of ischemia on that test was difficult due to the changes on Craze’s EKG. A subsequent Thallium report revealed that Craze’s ischemia “worsened in appearance and increased in size” since his February examination. Tr. at 220. It also stated that Craze’s defect in his left ventricle had increased in size since the earli*1327er examination. Id. Thus, Dr. Austin’s opinion, consistent with his earlier evaluations, should be accorded the substantial weight to which a treating physician’s opinions generally are entitled. See Davis v. Shalala, 31 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1994).
The ALJ also should not have summarily rejected Dr. Austin’s statement that Cruze is disabled under Iowa law. If Dr. Austin had been referring to a standard other than that appropriate in Social Security disability cases, the ALJ might have had a point. Dr. Austin’s statement, however, was addressed to the Iowa state office that makes the initial disability determinations for the Social Security Administration. His reference to Iowa law was therefore appropriate and should be credited accordingly.
Moreover, the majority’s wholesale reliance on the assessments of Drs. Minks and Nichols is misplaced. Neither doctor, retained by the Social Security Administration as consulting physicians, has ever personally examined Cruze. Both based their opinions solely on Craze’s medical records. Dr. Nichols did not even go to the trouble of preparing a narrative report. He simply checked a number of blanks in a form provided to him by the Social Security Administration. Dr. Minks expressed no opinion as to Craze’s walking limitations. Rather, he stated that Cruze has “no limitations in standing, sitting, pushing, pulling, or the use of hand or foot controls.” Tr. at 276. No one disagrees with that assessment, but the relevant inquiry is whether Craze is able to do the walking that is required for light work on a full-time basis. Most importantly, it is the responsibility of the ALJ to fully develop the record. If he found that there were inconsistencies in the opinions of the treating physician and the consulting physicians, he should have made further inquiry at the hearing to resolve the matter.
Finally, the ALJ and the majority have exaggerated the extent of Craze’s daily activities. According to the testimony of both Cruze and his housemate, Betty Clementson, Craze’s activity is quite limited. The ALJ found that Cruze “was mowing his lawn, shopping, and caring for a number of farm and domestic animals” and concluded, “[e]vidently, he can perform all activities necessary to maintain his nine-acre home place.” Tr. at 23-24. Such findings disregard Craze’s testimony that the only mowing he does is on a rider mower and that it is limited to ten minutes at a time. Tr. at 47-48. He also testified that Ms. Clementson does the majority of the household and farm chores and that his neighbor feeds his cattle for him once a day. Tr. at 49, 52. The majority similarly distorts Craze’s recreational activities, stating that they “often included a three-hour walk around town with friends.” Ms. Clementson testified that she and Cruze sometimes go shopping and out to eat on the weekends and that the entire trip would last, at a maximum, three hours. Tr. at 70. Nowhere in the record is there support for the view that Cruze is able to walk around town for three hours. Rather, he testified that he experiences shortness of breath and dizziness after walking for even a short period of time. Tr. at 43. Craze’s daily activities include only light farm chores and housekeeping, occasional shopping and carpentry, and visiting with friends and neighbors.
Neither the medical opinions nor Craze’s daily activities support the ALJ’s conclusion that Cruze is able to perform full-time work that requires significant walking or standing. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir.1982) (claimant must be able to perform the work “day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.”) (en banc). It is conceded that Cruze was not able to return to his past work. Thus, the burden was clearly on the Secretary to establish that Cruze could perform light work in accordance with the requirements of McCoy. She failed to carry her burden.
Cruze is entitled to disability benefits beginning January 1, 1993. In the alternative, the matter could be remanded to the ALJ to resolve the conflict between the treating physician and the consulting physicians and then to pose an appropriate hypothetical to the vocational expert. The majority, however, *1328rejects even that approach. I therefore dissent.