Court Opinion

ID: 9451677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:21:30.456583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:50.552238
License: Public Domain

BOREMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
Were it not for the fact that there are no specific findings with respect to one important aspect of the case I would affirm. Under the circumstances, however, I agree that the case should be remanded for further consideration by the Secretary.
The examiner found that claimant was not disabled “within the meaning of the Act,” and that claimant’s subjective complaints were not supported by the objective medical tests, examinations and diagnoses. Dr. Schmidt, an examining physician, suggested that claimant should not return to the mines and expose himself to noxious dusts because of the risk of aggravating a mild respiratory condition into incurably progressive third-stage silicosis. Dr. Schmidt explained in a letter dated April 22,1964, to claimant’s counsel: “We should, therefore, avoid exposing this gentleman any further. Suggest he be out of mining.” The examiner heeded the recommendation as shown in the second quotation in the majority opinion and indicated cognizance of the fact that claimant did have a “respiratory condition” which might be aggravated by further exposure to coal or silica dust or other really significant bronchial irritants. But the majority opinion fails to note the examiner’s conclusion, as follows:
“ * * * The Examiner believes that the great weight of the objective medical evidence does not show any significant functional impairment of his [claimant’s] respiratory system. This conclusion is supported by the pulmonary function studies that were made in July, 1963, by Dr. Gonzalez, the pulmonary function studies that were made in December, 1963, by Dr. Hamilton, and also the pulmonary function studies that were made by Dr. Schmidt in January, 1964.”
The examiner observed that at the time Williams filed his application he attributed his inability to work to an impairment of his respiratory system. The examiner stated his further observation:
“ * * * He now also attributes his disability to a hurting in his chest, legs, and back, including inability to walk continuously for as much as 15 to 20 minutes or to remain on his feet for more than two hours. The latter are new complaints and do not appear to agree entirely with information that he has furnished to physicians who examined him.”
These and other additional complaints were fully considered and discussed by the examiner but the conclusion was reached that, although it was possible or even probable that the claimant had some aches and pains, there was no reasonable basis for concluding that he has any discomfort of “disabling proportion.”
In my view, much of the evidence with respect to Williams’ physical condition is difficult to summarize since it is medically detailed and apparently not in clearcut and precise terms. This may account for the fact that the District Court, with no more than skeletal references to evidence, sustained the Secretary’s decision in a short letter-opinion. But the court ignored Dr. Schmidt’s warning, as heeded by the examiner, with reference to the risk of aggravation of a then relatively mild respiratory condition should claimant return to work in the mines.
The only justification for remanding the case is because of the failure to make specific findings with respect to the residual abilities of claimant to engage in substantial gainful activity in the area where he could reasonably be expected to market his labor. Perhaps it could be argued that findings based upon the testimony of the vocational expert are implicit in the broad and sweeping con-*954elusions of the examiner to the effect that claimant is not disabled “within the meaning of the Act’’ but the courts should not be required to resort to searching for findings by implication. The findings should be clear and explicit and to that end I agree that a remand for further consideration is appropriate.