Boyd v. Apfel

Decision Date19 January 2001
Docket NumberNo. 99-10610,99-10610
Citation239 F.3d 698
Parties(5th Cir. 2001) WILLIE L. BOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Respondent - Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas.

Before WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges; and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.1

ROSENTHAL, District Judge:

Willie L. Boyd appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny him disability benefits. Boyd asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") applied an incorrect legal standard in assessing the extent of Boyd's ability to work, and that the ALJ's decision was unsupported by the evidence. This court finds that the ALJ did apply the correct legal standard, but that the evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner's burden to show that despite his impairments, Boyd was able to perform available work. This court vacates the ALJ's ruling and remands this case to the Commission for further consideration.

I. BACKGROUND

Willie L. Boyd was born in 1956 and attended school through the tenth grade. He later obtained a GED. Boyd worked as a welder for eleven years, until April 1994, when he lost his job after missing thirty of his last ninety days of work due to illness. In April 1994, Boyd received hospital treatment for complaints of pain and high blood pressure. He was given a prescription for antidepressant medication and instructed to decrease his alcohol consumption. He briefly attempted to work as a general laborer in June 1994 and has not worked since. Boyd asserts that he has been completely disabled since that date.

In October 1994, Boyd returned to the hospital for another examination. On that visit, he was diagnosed with liver damage and was again instructed to stop drinking. On December 30, 1994, Boyd filed for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, alleging that the combined effects of hepatitis, hypertension, dizziness, leg and back pain, and fatigue made him unable to work.

In February 1995, Boyd was again hospitalized. Doctors diagnosed him as suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis and mild to moderate pancreatitis. Doctors removed his gall bladder through laparoscopic surgery. Boyd's initial claim for disability benefits was denied on March 27, 1995. He requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, but his illnesses delayed the hearing until June 1996.

In October 1995, Boyd's treating internist referred him to a psychiatric clinic. In January 1996, Dr. Juanaelena Garcia examined Boyd. Dr. Garcia's report of the January 1996 examination described symptoms of weekly anxiety attacks, which she diagnosed as the result of "[m]ajor depressive disorder, single episode, moderate," and an adjustment disorder involving anxiety and depression, for which she prescribed an antidepressant, Prozac. Dr. Garcia determined that Boyd had a Global Assessment of Functioning ("GAF")2 score of 60, a score reflecting "moderate symptoms (e.g. flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional panic attacks) OR any moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school function (e.g., few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers)." Dr. Garcia also observed that Boyd was alcohol-dependent and told him that the antidepressant medication would not be effective unless he stopped drinking. On June 11, 1996, during one of Boyd's return visits, Dr. Garcia increased Boyd's Prozac dose to treat a relapse of depressive symptoms. Dr. Garcia's notes of the June 1996 examination state her opinion that Boyd would be unable to work for a year and that he had a "poor prognosis." In June 1996, Boyd was hospitalized for a complaint of chest pain and shortness of breath and discharged with medication to treat his hypertension.

The ALJ held a hearing on Boyd's disability claim on June 18, 1996. The ALJ heard testimony from Boyd; his wife, Diana Boyd; a medical expert, Dr. William Daily; and a vocational expert, Susan Brooks. The ALJ had Dr. Garcia's records relating to Boyd, but heard no testimony from Dr. Garcia. The only medical testimony at the hearing pertained to Boyd's "exertional" impairments.3

At the hearing, Boyd testified that he suffered from liver problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, pain, panic attacks, depression, suicidal thoughts, and hallucinations. Boyd testified that he could lift ten pounds and stand for fifteen to twenty minutes. Although Boyd had completed the tenth grade and later obtained a GED, his spelling and arithmetic skills were significantly below high school level. Boyd testified that he had been fired from his last job as a certified Class A welder in April 1994, after missing a total one month of work time out of the previous three months. He testified that he tried to return to work as a general laborer in June 1994, but again missed many days of work and was unable to continue.

Diane Boyd testified that her husband suffered from delusions, including seeing people in the room who were not there. She also testified that he was withdrawn, had little social or familial interaction, and was depressed. Diane Boyd testified that her husband's condition had worsened to such an extent that she had spoken with her sister about having Boyd committed to a mental institution.

The Commissioner called Dr. Daily, a specialist in internal medicine, to testify. Dr. Daily did not review the psychiatric records or provide any information as to Boyd's nonexertional impairments. Dr. Daily testified that the medical records showed that Boyd suffered from controllable hypertension; diabetes mellitus, in temporary complete remission; chronic hepatitis B and hepatitis C infections; chest pain; pain in his extremities possibly caused by diabetic neuropathy; and cirrhosis. Dr. Daily testified that the combination of Boyd's physical problems had totally incapacitated him on an intermittent basis since April 1994.

Susan Brooks, the vocational expert, testified that Boyd's previous work as a welder was classified as medium, skilled labor, and that his work as a laborer was classified as medium, unskilled labor. The ALJ asked Brooks a series of hypothetical questions about the kinds of work a person with assumed impairments would be able to perform:

Q All right. Assume that I find that he can do a full range, that a person 40 years of age, with that past work history, tenth grade education, can do a full range of light work?

A I'm sorry, you said a tenth grade education?

. . .

Q Tenth grade education, can do a full range of light work? I know I can take the grids on that, but I want to ask you if you could assume that I find that this man has such disturbance to the extent that his maybe, his concentration or memory is limited so that if he does work, he's got to work in a simple, one or two-step-type jobs. I don't know if his skills or like [sic] transferable to the simple job like that, or just any kind of a job, where he does not have to remember complex instructions, but can understand simple instructions, and where he can carry out, does not have to - can stay on task a full eight hours, but he does not have to think about things too much, just repetitive-type work?

A In my opinion, it's kind of a misconception about the one to two-step jobs, that most of the jobs, they have several steps. That is an unskilled level. They're not complex steps.

Q Okay. No that's the flush out [sic].

A So, at an unskilled level, I think that's primary [sic] what you're looking at, is jobs that are not complex, that require less than 30 days of training.

(Hearing Transcript, pp. 38-40).

Based on this hypothetical question, Brooks testified that Boyd would be able to work as a production line welder, as a coin collector, or in hardware assembly. Brooks classified each of these occupations as light, unskilled work that occurred in significant numbers in the local and national economies.

After the hearing ended, the ALJ ordered Boyd examined by a consulting psychologist. Boyd was examined by Diana Garrison, M.A., under the supervision of Dr. Joanna Ellis, and by Dr. S.S. Pepermintwala, a psychiatrist at Parkland Hospital. The results of their evaluations were a Psychological Report prepared by Diana Garrison; a Medical Assessment of Ability to Do Work-Related Activities prepared by Dr. Ellis; and an Affective Disorders Form and a Severity of Impairment form completed by Dr. Pepermintwala.

In her Psychological Report, Garrison diagnosed Boyd as suffering from psychotic disorder, chronic alcohol dependence, and an alcohol-related cognitive disorder. Garrison administered a number of tests to measure intellectual and other functioning levels.4 She assessed Boyd's I.Q. as 76, within the borderline intellectual functioning range.5 Under the "Activities of Daily Living" section of the Psychological Report, Garrison reported, based on Boyd's representations, that Boyd could tend to basic self-care tasks, but was unable to drive due to "panic attacks" and could not manage his own finances. Garrison reported that Boyd had a tendency to avoid others and that his "Concentration, Persistence, [and] Pace" were good.6Garrison concluded that Boyd had a GAF of 50. A GAF score of 41 to 50 is classified as reflecting "serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job)."7

Dr. Ellis assessed Boyd's ability to perform work-related mental tasks. In her report, Dr. Ellis stated that Boyd "exhibits few adaptive coping skills or adequate social skills" and that his ability to deal with work stresses and function independently was "poor/none." These limitations resulted in "the need for close supervision" and "considerable trepidation/anxiety as concerns taking on job responsibilities," as ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1039 cases
  • Hector v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • March 1, 2004
    ...no substantial evidence is appropriate if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision. See Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th Cir.2001). The court may not, however, reweigh the evidence, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commi......
  • Brown v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 24, 2014
    ...an individual's overall functioning level "with respect only to psychological, social, and occupational functioning." Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 700 n. 2 (5th Cir.2001); see also American Psychiatric Ass'n Diagnostic and Statistical Manual at 32 (4th ed. 1994)). A GAF of sixty indicates m......
  • Puente v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • September 22, 2008
    ...no substantial evidence is appropriate if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision. See Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th Cir.2001). The court may not, however, reweigh the evidence, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commi......
  • Hawthorne v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • March 19, 2007
    ...no substantial evidence is appropriate if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision. See Boyd v., Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th Cir.2001). The court may not, however, reweigh the evidence, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment for that of the Comm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Case survey
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...the [Commissioner] meets this burden, the claimant must then prove that he cannot in fact perform the work suggested.’” Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698, 705 (5th Cir. 2001), quotingMuse v. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991). (2) The claimant’s burden of proof comes to bear in steps o......
  • Administrative review issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...claim for disability benefits, and if the ALJ does not fulfill this duty, his decision is not substantially justified. Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698, 708 (5 th Cir. 2001), citing Newton v. Apfel , 209 F.3d 448, 458 (5 th Cir. 2000) ( citing Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5 th Cir. 1995......
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • May 5, 2015
    ...since “the medical evidence [was] replete with references to alcoholism and mental disorders associated with alcoholism.” Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698,707 (5th Cir. 2001). However, the court noted that the ALJ did not base his decision on the claimant’s alcohol use and did not find this use......
  • Assessment of disability issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ..., 964 F. Supp. 939, 955 (D. Md. 1997), citing Walker v. Bowen , 889 F.2d 47, 50-51 (4 th Cir. 1989). d. Fifth Circuit In Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698, 707 (5 th Cir. 2001), the Fifth Circuit found that the ALJ’s hypothetical question did not include many of the impairments or limitations de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT