Court Opinion

ID: 9474003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:45:21.847679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:51.164911
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
As the majority correctly notes, the Secretary’s evaluation procedures, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, are designed to promote both individualized justice and administrative efficiency. The majority correctly sets forth the statutorily defined five step evaluation procedure, and recognizes that this court’s function is not to reweigh the evidence de novo but rather to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s decision. Correct application of the statutory test and proper review of the evidence presented in this case, I believe, mandates affirmance. Accordingly, I dissent.
I. ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA
Claimant filed three prior applications for Supplemental Security Income in May 1977, July 1979, and March 1981 respectively. Each of these applications was denied. The Secretary, in response to claimant’s March 1981 application, found claimant suffering from a somatization disorder, R. 82, the same disability raised in claimant’s *91most recent application, and yet denied benefits. Now on her fourth application, claimant states that her alleged impairment began at birth,1 R: 87, and fails to present any evidence to suggest that she now has additional disabilities or that the disorder diagnosed and considered in her third application has in any way worsened.
As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 1560, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966): “When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judi-cata to enforce repose.” Indeed, in Social Security cases, courts have applied administrative res judicata principles to prevent the Secretary from terminating benefits once given:
After a final determination of disability, if a termination of benefits were effected without a showing either of improvement or newly-discovered evidence, such a termination would of necessity be based on whim or caprice or would constitute an impermissible relitigation of facts and determinations already finally decided.
Shaw v. Schweiker, 536 F.Supp. 79, 83 (E.D.Pa.1982); see also Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966, 969 n. 2 (11th Cir.1982); Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431, 439-40 (6th Cir.1985) (Wellford, J., dissenting). Here, I believe that unless the claimant can show a worsening of her condition since her prior three applications, an award of benefits would be unjustified and would lead to repeated applications for disability by claimants hoping that a new ALJ and court would view the same evidence in a different fashion.
Of course, administrative res judicata should not be applied with the inflexibility with which judicial res judicata must be applied. See 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 548 (1958). The Social Security Regulations, in fact, authorize reopening of otherwise final determinations upon a finding of good cause or for correcting clerical errors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.957.
The majority notes that use of the medical-vocational grids was found to be a proper exercise of statutory authority, in part because it “provides greater uniformity with fewer administrative costs.” Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 667 F.2d 524, 530 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957, 103 S.Ct. 2428, 77 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1983). Yet permitting a claimant to reapply year after year without showing changed conditions will not promote uniformity, can only increase the administrative costs, and works a disservice to the interests of justice.
II. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Notwithstanding the administrative res judicata problems presented in this case, substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s denial of benefits. As the majority itself notes, under the regulations an impairment is non-severe if it “does not significantly limit [the claimant’s] physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.921. Basic work activities include “understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; use of judgment; responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and dealing with changes in a routine work setting.” Id. Substantial evidence shows that claimant’s somatization disorder is not significantly limiting.
Dr. Bevilacqua, a licensed psychiatrist, specifically addressed claimant’s abilities concerning each basic work activity:
Her ability to relate to co-workers and supervisors in a work situation ... appears to be very adequate. She is able to understand, remember and carry out one and two step instructions and use common sense and her ability to respond appropriately to ordinary work pressures and behave independently in a standard*92ized work situation is at this point adequate.
R. 198.
Dr. Hearn, a psychological examiner, and Dr. Little, a clinical psychologist, noted:
On the basis of the history, interview and test results it is my opinion that this claimant has no disabling conditions of a psychological nature. I think [claimant] would be able to function adequately and independently in gainful employment. She would be able to understand, remember and carry out simple verbal instructions under ordinary supervision, relate appropriately to supervisors and co-workers and meet quality and production standards.
R. 201. After reviewing claimant’s abilities to perform basic work activities, and after applying “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” see 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C), these doctors found that claimant was not suffering from a severe disability. Under the majority’s own analysis, “[i]f the claimant does not have a severe impairment, she is found ‘not disabled.’ ” The Secretary need go no further in her analysis.2
Notwithstanding Dr. Hutt’s April 21, 1981 pessimistic diagnosis that “[claimant] is definitely unable to meet any production standards or to sustain work with adequate attendance,” R. 187, claimant did work until October 20, 1981, a full six months after Dr. Hutt’s pronouncement.
While the Secretary should give more weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician than to that of one the Secretary has hired and who has examined a claimant only once, see Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 708 F.2d 1048, 1054 (6th Cir.1983), the Secretary need not and indeed should not ignore the opinions of her own physicians. When, as here, external objective facts support the opinion of the Secretary’s doctors, and not that of the claimant’s treating physician, the Secretary in her discretion may properly make credibility findings in favor of her own physicians.
Substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s denial of benefits. I would Affirm for the reasons stated.

. The majority states that claimant became disabled on November 20, 1981. Yet in her fourth application, in answer to the unambiguous question "date impairment began," claimant equally unambiguously, responded “since birth,” R. 87.

. The majority notes that the AU "did not rule that her impairment did not meet or exceed a listed impairment” even though the AU found that claimant "did not have a severe impairment" (emphasis in original). If a claimant does not have a severe impairment then a fortio-ri she does not meet a listed impairment, since listed impairments are those that are so severe that disability is presumed.