Bean v. Chater, 95-1037
| Decision Date | 07 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1037,95-1037 |
| Citation | 77 F.3d 1210 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 15108B Lois BEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, * Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 93-F-2587).
Stephen A. Flynn, of Pikes Peak Legal Services, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, for appellant.
Richard A. Kaufman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Henry L. Solano, U.S. Attorney, of Denver, Colorado, Frank V. Smith, Acting Chief Counsel, Region VIII and Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Denver, Colorado, for appellee.
Before BRISCOE and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, ** District Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f) and 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Lois Bean appeals from a judgment upholding defendant the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision denying plaintiff's application for supplemental security income (SSI). Plaintiff contends the Secretary was biased against poor persons who have not established a satisfactory work history, that her findings concerning plaintiff's credibility are not supported by substantial evidence, and that the Secretary erred in rejecting the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician. We reject these contentions and affirm.
Plaintiff applied for SSI on April 28, 1992, claiming she had been disabled since 1984 1 due to a back injury. Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration.
At an evidentiary hearing, the following evidence was presented. Plaintiff was thirty-three years' old and had a GED. She last worked in 1981 as a label shipper, but quit because she could not find a baby-sitter. She alleged disabling pain in her back, arms, hands, and head that requires she lie down about four times a day for an hour to an hour and a half. She takes three Advil and three Tylenol to relieve the pain. Her pain had become much worse since she fell and hit her head in January 1992. However, her problems began in 1985 when she was in a car accident. Plaintiff and her witnesses testified that her daily activities are extremely limited and that she is in pain. A vocational expert (VE) testified that there are no jobs a hypothetical person with the limitations described by plaintiff could perform. However, a person with the limitations found in the residual functional capacity (RFC) form completed for plaintiff could perform plaintiff's past work as well as the sedentary jobs of animal shelter clerk, order clerk, and police aid.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) made the following findings: 1) plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since she filed her application; 2) she suffers from chronic neck pain and complaints of low back pain, but does not have a listed impairment or equivalent thereto; 3) plaintiff's statements and the testimony of her witnesses as to the severity of her pain are not credible and were exaggerated for the sole purpose of establishing that she is disabled for securing benefits; 4) plaintiff has the RFC to perform work-related activities involving occasionally lifting and carrying twenty pounds, frequently lifting and carrying ten pounds, standing and/or walking two hours in an eight-hour work day, and sitting six hours in an eight-hour work day; 5) plaintiff's past relevant work as label shipper did not require the performance of activities precluded by the above limitations; 6) plaintiff's impairments do not prevent her from performing her past relevant work as label shipper; and 7) plaintiff was not under a disability at any time through the date of the decision. The Appeals Council concluded there was no basis for granting review. Consequently, the ALJ's decision stood as the final decision of the Secretary. The district court affirmed.
We review the Secretary's decision to determine whether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether she applied correct legal standards. Andrade v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir.1993). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quotation omitted).
Plaintiff first contends the ALJ was biased against poor persons who have not established a satisfactory work history. She bases this contention on the ALJ's comments that plaintiff "has a very poor work record," her "work history is not a factor in her favor," and "she indicated her daughter had turned eighteen, and the Welfare people advised her to file for supplemental security income benefits." Appellant's App. at 29.
The ALJ made these comments in assessing the credibility of plaintiff's subjective complaints of disabling pain. "Credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and we will not upset such determinations when supported by substantial evidence." Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir.1995).
Social Security Ruling 88-13 (West's Soc.Sec.Rptg.Serv.Rulings 1983-91 (1992), at 655) requires ALJs to "investigate all avenues presented that relate to subjective complaints" of disabling pain, and lists a number of factors that should be considered. One factor is the claimant's prior work record. Id. Thus, the ALJ did not err in considering that plaintiff quit working several years before the alleged onset of her disability. Nor did he place undue emphasis on this factor, but considered it as one of several factors bearing on plaintiff's credibility. He considered that although plaintiff claimed her disability began in 1985 after an accident, hospital records show she responded to therapy at that time and did not seek treatment for complaints of neck and/or back pain in 1986 and 1987, and that although she claimed she exacerbated her back and neck pain in a fall in January 1992, she did not seek medical treatment for the resulting injuries until April 1992. He also considered her use of medications and daily activities. We conclude the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's work history and did not exhibit bias against her.
Plaintiff also claims the ALJ improperly evaluated her credibility by relying on inconsistencies in her report of daily activities that did not, in fact, exist. The ALJ noted plaintiff testified that she needed to lie down frequently throughout the day for extended periods. However, she had not made such claims early in the application process. Further, early in the process she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmina Shipping AS v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...of expertise are peculiarly within its province, and courts will upset them only if made irrationally.”); see also Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir.1995) (“Credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and we will not upset such determinations whe......
-
Anderson v. Apfel
...F.2d at 517. Thus, a court "will not upset such [credibility] determinations when supported by substantial evidence." Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir.1995) (internal quotation "`To establish disabling pain without explicit confirmation of treating physicians may be difficult. N......
-
Kent v. Apfel
...Cir.1987). Thus, a court "will not upset such [credibility] determinations when supported by substantial evidence." Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir.1995) (internal quotation In evaluating claimant's testimony regarding impairments and symptoms, the ALJ noted that the claimant t......
-
Allen v. Apfel
...Cir.1987). Thus, a court "will not upset such [credibility] determinations when supported by substantial evidence." Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir.1995) (internal quotation The plaintiff principally disputes the ALJ's failure to credit her testimony about the debilitating pain......
-
Case survey
...evidence in the record.” Drapeau v. Massanari , 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001), citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d) (2); Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995). (2) As noted in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(I), the opinion of a treating physician must be accorded § 202.2 SOCIAL S......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...evidence in the record.” Drapeau v. Massanari , 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10 th Cir. 2001), citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d) (2); Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10 th Cir. 1995). (2) As noted in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(I), the opinion of a treating physician must be accorded controlling we......
-
Table of Cases
...Sept. 20, 2000), §§ 205.2, 205.5, 205.10 B.B. ex. rel. A.L.B. v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1069, 1071 (5th Cir. 1981), § 802 Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995), § 202.1 Beardsley v. Colvin , 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. July 10, 2014), 7 th -14 Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Properties, In......
-
Table of cases
...Sept. 20, 2000), §§ 205.2, 205.5, 205.10 B.B. ex. rel. A.L.B. v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1069, 1071 (5th Cir. 1981), § 802 Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995), § 202.1 Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Properties, Inc., 780 F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 1986), § 702.7 Beauvoir v. Chater , 10......