Court Opinion

ID: 9481385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:17:35.988699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:17.182379
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the result reached by the ALJ, the Appeals Council, and the district court because there is substantial evidence to support that result. McKnight was fifty years old when he filed his first application for supplemental benefits, claiming disability at age forty-nine under the Social Security Act based upon glaucoma and arthritis. (His second application added “hemorrhoids, HBP, smother, etc.” as a basis of claimed disability.) Dr. Lea J. Perritt, on March 23, 1988, found no “medically determinable impairment” upon a psychiatric review of his mental condition despite claims of nervousness and “smothering.”
Dr. Georges Birenbaum had examined McKnight as early as 1979, finding early traces of glaucoma. An optical examination in June of 1987 reflected 20/20 vision. Medication was continued which had earlier been prescribed but neglected. In September 1987, Dr. Birenbaum noted 20/25 vision “with no corrective glasses.” Despite presence of glaucoma, the eye doctor’s examination revealed no “marked visual abnormalities,” and he stated that he doubted the patient was taking the prescribed medication. This evidence clearly establishes no disability by reason of glaucoma at the time of claimed disability.
Dr. Rick R. McClure found in December 1987 that despite MeKnight’s claim of arthritis aching and stiffness, there were no noticed “inflammatory changes” and low back pain was denied. Dr. McClure noted complaints of hemorrhoids for about eight years aggravated by lifting and standing for long periods of time. Dr. McClure, however, made no statement of disability based on this condition. Blood pressure was reportedly normal despite a claim of hypertension, and McKnight indicated no “visual disturbances associated with this.” Dr. McClure added that “he is going to need surgery at some point in time in the near future,” but that “new glasses ... helped his visual acuity.” In summary, he was then a “well developed, well nourished white male in no acute distress with normal gait and normal station.” (Dr. McClure found his vision also to be 20/20.) This same doctor found “no joint deformities or decrease in range of motion,” and there was “no restriction of daily activities, ... no objective evidence of significant inflammatory or degenerative arthritis.” (Emphasis added).
Dr. Dennis Ulrich, in May 1988, evaluated McKnight prior to “contemplated surgery for glaucoma,” and it was his conclusion, without any basis shown on analysis, that until this was done, “this patient is unable to work.” Dr. Ulrich, unlike Dr. Birenbaum, is not an eye specialist but a family practice physician licensed in 1978 after training at Southern Illinois School of Medicine.
I find substantial evidence to support the AU’s conclusion, based on this record, that “claimant does not have a ‘severe impairment’ which would limit his ability to perform basic work activities for a period of twelve continuous months” despite- his glaucoma and need of eye surgery, and his hemorrhoids and nervousness or hypertension. See Cornette v. Secretary, 869 F.2d 260 (6th Cir.1988).
I believe the majority delves into something beside the point in discussing whether McKnight’s eye condition is remediable and/or whether he can afford medication or surgery. His vision, in fact, is not demonstrated to be impaired and no other physical condition, singly or in combination, is shown to be disabling within the meaning of the Act.
I would accordingly AFFIRM.