Court Opinion

ID: 9476926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:09:19.895446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:35.500215
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, J., dissenting.
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.* The Secretary concedes that appellant suffers and has suffered from “severe musculoskeletal impairment and related symptomatology,” and has had “positive documentation for a herniated disc.” It is also obvious, and not really disputed, that this condition produces rather severe pain, and that appellant has not worked since May 1982. Of course, the question is whether these conditions are or were totally disabling. Relying on the 1985 reports of doctors Robertson and Chunduri, the AU concluded that appellant’s disability was not so severe as to prevent her from performing “her past sedentary work as a receptionist and secretary.” I do not dispute that this evidence, or at least the reports of Dr. Chunduri, provides some support for the AU’s conclusion respecting appellant’s condition at the hearing. However, if appellant can now perform her past work, it seems obvious that she can at best barely do so. Dr. Robertson’s 1985 report concluded that she could not sit more than four hours in an eight-hour day, nor more than two hours at a time. It seems obvious that if one with these limitations can perform as a secretary or receptionist, they can only barely do so. Dr. Chunduri, in his 1985 report, was a little more optimistic, saying that appellant could sit as much as six hours out *513of an eight-hour day. But here again, it is obvious that if appellant is able to do her prior work, she is just barely able to do so.
The Secretary recognizes that a “significant medical improvement” in appellant’s condition occurred after her November 1984 Chymopapain injection. This is likewise recognized in the majority opinion. With respect to periods of time prior to this injection, the only explicit disability evaluations are those of Dr. Alameda in April and July 1983, in which he opined that appellant was definitely unable to work. The Secretary argues that the AU “rejected” Dr. Alameda’s opinions. But this does not appear to be the case. Rather, the AU’s opinion states:
“The Administrative Law Judge has considered the restrictions noted by Dr. Alameda in April and July 1983, but concludes that these restrictions did not render the claimant disable[d] for 12 continuous months as required by the Social Security Act, as amended. Accordingly, while temporarily disabling, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the claimant’s impairment has not rendered the claimant disabled for 12 continuous months.... ”
This indicates that the AU found that appellant was disabled when examined by Dr. Alameda, and did not reject Dr. Alameda’s opinions. What the AU concluded was that the disability found by Dr. Alameda did not last for twelve consecutive months. But there is absolutely nothing in the record to support that finding, and it is contrary to appellant’s testimony and to the fact that appellant was found to have a herniated disc in October 1984, coupled with the other findings of Dr. Robertson (and other doctors) concerning her condition at and before that time. Thereafter, she significantly improved, as a result of the November 1984 injection, but even this significant improvement barely took her over the threshold of being able to do her prior work. Accordingly, even though there is substantial evidence that since sometime in 1985 appellant has been able to do her prior work, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that she was able to do so during the twelve months and more commencing in April 1983. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

 Since neither party in this case requests oral argument, and since the panel is unanimously of the opinion that oral argument is not appropriate, the filing of a dissenting opinion is consistent with the disposition of this case on the summary calendar under the Court's internal operating procedures.