Arocho v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
| Decision Date | 05 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1012,81-1012 |
| Citation | 670 F.2d 374 |
| Parties | Bienvenido AROCHO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Manuel Medina Jaca and Hector Rafael Diaz Gonzalez, Rio Piedras, P. R., on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.
Raymond L. Acosta, U. S. Atty., and E. M. De Jesus, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and BREYER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant applied for medical disability benefits under the Social Security Act in 1973, 1976, and 1977. All three applications were denied and the third denial became the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services when it was approved by the Appeals Council on February 29, 1980. This action was instituted when appellant sought review of the Secretary's decision in the district court under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered judgment for the Secretary and this appeal followed.
Appellant claims a number of symptoms which, he says, indicate his disability. These include back pains, swelling of the legs, occasional dizzy spells, numbness in his legs, weakness in his left arm, nervous problems manifested by shakiness and cold hands, and arthritis and poor circulation.
It seems uncontradicted that appellant has some back problems of long-standing duration. The real question in this appeal is whether those problems are severe enough to be regarded as disabling under the Act, either by themselves or in combination with his psychological problems.
It was conceded that appellant is not able to perform any of his prior jobs. The Secretary therefore had the burden of coming forward with evidence of specific jobs in the national economy that he can perform. Hernandez v. Weinberger, 493 F.2d 1120, 1122 (1st Cir. 1974). The Secretary usually seeks to meet that burden, as in this case, by relying on the testimony of a vocational expert. See Ramos v. Secretary, 514 F.Supp. 57, 64 (D.P.R.1981). But in order for a vocational expert's answer to a hypothetical question to be relevant, the inputs into that hypothetical must correspond to conclusions that are supported by the outputs from the medical authorities. To guarantee that correspondence, the Administrative Law Judge must both clarify the outputs (deciding what testimony will be credited and resolving ambiguities), and accurately transmit the clarified output to the expert in the form of assumptions. In this case, both clarification and transmission were inadequate.
The expert listed a number of jobs that would be available, in response to the following question:
ALJ "Assume for the following hypothetical question that the claimant can do sedentary work in which he can alternate position, sit or stand, with the skills learned from his previous work which are transferable to this type of sedentary work, what work could he perform with the transferable residual capacity that the claimant has?"
The problem with the question is that it inadequately conveys to the expert the precise time limits on the claimant's daily activities.
At the hearing the claimant testified that he could not remain seated for more than half an hour. 1 The record includes reports from an orthopedist, an orthopedic surgeon, a neurologist, and a psychiatrist, who had all examined him after November 1977. The orthopedic surgeon reported that appellant was "permanently disabled" and "unemployable". The orthopedist reported that appellant could perform the sorts of activities listed as "sedentary" in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (1981), but that his endurance was limited. On a questionnaire that asked, "In an 8-hr. workday, claimant can: (circle full capacity for each )", the orthopedist circled the number "3" after "sit", "3" after "stand", and "2" after "walk". (See Appendix) The neurologist, whose report was relied on most heavily by the Administrative Law Judge, responded to a similar questionnaire by circling "2" after "sit", "2" after "stand", and "2" after "walk".
The foregoing testimony constitutes the only evidence of record concerning the claimant's ability to work a full eight-hour day. The claimant and orthopedic surgeon unambiguously implied that he could not work a full eight-hour day. However, the orthopedist's and neurologist's reports are ambiguous on their faces. On the one hand, their responses to the questionnaire could be understood as describing capacities that are totally independent of one another (e.g., the orthopedist might have been saying that the claimant can walk for 2 hours in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Musto v. Halter
...must correspond to conclusions that are supported by the outputs from the medical authorities." Arocho v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982). "To guarantee that correspondence, the Administrative Law Judge must both clarify the outputs (deciding what testimony......
-
Johnson v. Colvin
...must come in response to a hypothetical question that accurately describes the claimant's impairments. See Arocho v. Sec'y. of Health & Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir.1982) ; Cohen v. Astrue , 851 F.Supp.2d 277, 284 (D.Mass.2012). Where a hypothetical omits "any mention of a [clai......
-
Olmeda v. Astrue
...into which must correspond to conclusions that are supported by the outputs of the medical authorities. Arocho v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir.1982). “Nevertheless,” ‘the [administrative law judge] is required only to incorporate into his hypotheticals those ......
-
Mazzella v. SECRETARY OF US DEPT. OF H. & H. SERVICES, 82 Civ. 6731(RJW).
...can be "substantial gainful activity" see Burkhalter v. Schweiker, 711 F.2d 841, 844-45 (8th Cir.1983); see also Arocho v. Secretary of HHS, 670 F.2d 374, 376 (1st Cir.1982), other courts have held that such activity means only full-time work on a regular basis. See Johnson v. Harris, 612 F......
-
Table of cases
...Cir. Jan. 16, 2007), 7th-07 Arnone v. Bowen , 882 F.2d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 1989), § 205.7 Arocho v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs. , 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982), §§ 210.4, 1210.5 Arroyo v. Barnhart, 295 F. Supp.2d 214 (D. Mass. 2003), §§ 1203.6, 1203.14 Arroyo v. Callahan , 973 F. S......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. Jan. 16, 2007), 7th-07 Arnone v. Bowen , 882 F.2d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 1989), § 205.7 Arocho v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs. , 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982), §§ 210.4, 1210.5 Arroyo v. Barnhart, 295 F. Supp.2d 214 (D. Mass. 2003), §§ 1203.6, 1203.14 Arroyo v. Callahan , 973 F. S......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...conclusions that are supported by the outputs from the medical authorities.’” Id. , quoting Arocho v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1 st Cir. 1982). See also Aguiar v. Apfel , 99 F. Supp.2d 130, 139 (D. Mass. 2000) (holding that since the ALJ’s conclusions regardin......