Court Opinion

ID: 9471486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:33:29.020671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:25.852640
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Administrative Law Judge issued a three page evaluation of the evidence and ten specific findings in this case, concluding that Weaver was entitled to a closed period of disability ending June 30, 1981, but that no new period thereafter had been established. There is no dispute that plaintiff experienced a laminectomy in January of 1980; that he worked for about nine weeks in 1981 after recovery from the immediate effects of this operation; and that he was unable to continue to do the heavy work associated with his shop mechanic work after March of 1981. The ALJ made the following evaluation of Weaver’s assertion that pain prevented him from continuing to engage in any gainful employment:
The only other element which may affect this claimant’s ability to engage in some work activity is the allegations of pain. While it is recognized that pain of a severe and persistent nature can be in and of itself disabling, it must be also established that because it is a symptom rather than a medically determinable impairment subject to precise diagnostic measurement, that there is a high level of subjectivity in stating the degree to which it exists. The preponderance of the evidence in this case does not show that claimant presently has pain which is of the degree that would preclude all work activity. There is no question that claimant experienced back pain however after the recovery from the surgery claimant made two attempts to return to the strenuous work that he previously did. This caused him to experience discomfort, according to him, that caused him to stop. However, his present level of activity which is similar to sedentary work activity does not elicit pain to the degree experienced when trying to do the mechanic job. This conclusion is rein*313forced by claimant’s action at the hearing. Mr. Weaver was observed to walk to and from the hearing room without any show of discomfort on movement; he stood and turned to show the undersigned where he experiences the pain and walked to where the undersigned was seated with his medication all without effort or visual display of discomfort.
The ALJ did, I believe, a thorough job of examining the full record and giving full consideration to Weaver’s claim of disabling pain. It was not a “sit and squirm” analysis, so often criticized by claimants’ counsel in this court.
Furthermore, Dr. Rosenblatt, the physician who performed the laminectomy in March of 1980, remarked that Weaver was then “doing relatively well, but has some pain in the right hip primarily from the bone graft donor site. The patient certainly will have over a year of temporary total disability until the subsequent spinal fusion heals and it probably would be better for him to have only light work if such is available” (emphasis added). The record reflects no prescriptions being taken by Weaver for pain after October of 1980. Later, Dr. Rosenblatt’s evaluation of disability was equivocal and based on what Weaver felt about performance of “his usual functions” as a shop mechanic. An April, 1981 physical capacities evaluation by a physician 1 indicates that Weaver could sit 3-4 hours at a time, stand 3 hours at a time, walk 2 hours at a time, and frequently lift or carry 6-10 pounds (occasionally 11-20 pounds) and could use both hands for repetitive movements and both feet for pushing and pulling of leg controls. In addition, he could occasionally bend and squat with only a “mild” restriction to being around moving machinery, none to being exposed to dust, fumes and gases.
I cannot agree that the vocational expert’s testimony in his record does not support a conclusion that Weaver’s mechanical skills are transferable to some type of sedentary work as found by the ALJ and, at least inferentially, by the district judge.2

. The name of the physician is unclear in the record. (App. 130).

. I find, Blake v. Secretary, 528 F.Supp. 881 (E.D.Mich.1981) inapplicable to these facts; nor does it in my view establish that 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, App. 2, 201.00(f) contains a presumption that skills are not transferable in sedentary work for a person of Weaver’s age (the plaintiff in Blake was 60 years old or older; the court held that the vocation expert confused general “aptitude” with “skills” in considering whether the latter was transferable).