Bradley v. Bowen
| Decision Date | 14 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2799,86-2799 |
| Citation | 809 F.2d 1054 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,157 Jacqueline BRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Anthony P. Griffin, Inc., Yvonne M. Williams, Galveston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Frank A. Conforti, James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., John M. Gough, Attys., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before RUBIN, RANDALL and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Jacqueline Bradley appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Otis R. Bowen, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services("the Secretary"), affirming the Secretary's denial of Bradley's application for Social Security disability benefits.Finding that the Secretary's determination is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Bradley filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits on October 11, 1983, claiming that she became disabled on June 26, 1983, due to a back injury that she sustained in 1978 while attempting to move a piece of furniture at work.Bradley's claim was denied initially on November 3, 1983, and on reconsideration on January 10, 1984.Bradley requested a hearing, and a hearing was held before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") on March 21, 1984.
Bradley testified at the hearing, and numerous medical reports were offered into evidence as exhibits.The medical evidence showed that Bradley had back surgery on June 5, 1978, which resulted in the removal of a herniated nucleus pulposus on her right side at level L4-L5.This surgery was performed by Dr. George W. Cox, an orthopedic surgeon.Bradley underwent a second surgery on her back on February 6, 1981, and a third on July 21, 1983.The second and third operations were also performed by Dr. Cox.Bradley was under Dr. Cox's care from May 1978 through January 1984.
Three medical opinions were offered on the issue of Bradley's disability.In a letter to an insurance company dated February 15, 1984, Dr. Cox, Bradley's treating physician, stated that although Bradley was presently disabled, she would hopefully be able to return to her previous work activity within three to six months.However, in a physical capacities evaluation dated April 5, 1984, Dr. Cox indicated that Bradley had no capacity for sitting, standing, or walking, could not lift or carry even objects weighing up to five pounds, and could not bend, squat, crawl, climb, or reach at all.In a letter to the Secretary dated August 13, 1984, Dr. Cox expressed the opinion that Bradley "has a very guarded prognosis as regards her ability to return to gainful work activity in the near future."
In contrast to the opinion of Dr. Cox, Dr. Frank L. Barnes, another orthopedic surgeon, who examined Bradley opined that Bradley was capable of sedentary or light work, and that Bradley could sit for two hours at a time up to eight hours a day, could stand up to one-half hour at a time, could walk for one hour at a time, could occasionally bend over, and could lift or carry up to five pounds and push or pull up to twenty pounds.
Another medical evaluation was provided by Dr. Brent E. Masel, a neurologist who examined Bradley at the request of Dr Cox.In a letter to Dr. Cox dated October 19, 1983, Dr. Masel stated that although Bradley was experiencing some pain, there was no evidence of muscle spasms and her strength appeared to be one hundred percent.
The evidence also showed that prior to leaving her job in June 1983, Bradley worked as an underwriter trainee.Prior to becoming an underwriter trainee, she worked as an assistant office manager, a machine operator, and a stenographer.Bradley's employment as an underwriter trainee was office work, and mostly involved sitting and reading, and required no lifting of objects of more than ten pounds.On August 31, 1984, the ALJ issued his decision denying Bradley's claim.In his decision, the ALJ found that Bradley retained the residual functional capacity to engage in her past occupation as an underwriter trainee.Bradley requested Appeals Council review, which was denied on November 27, 1984, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Secretary.
On January 30, 1985, Bradley sought judicial review of the Secretary's decision by filing this action in federal district court.The case was referred to a magistrate, and both parties moved for summary judgment.On August 26, 1986, the magistrate issued his Memorandum and Recommendation, finding that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence and recommending that the Secretary's motion for summary judgment be granted.On September 16, 1986, the district court adopted the Memorandum and Recommendation of the magistrate as the findings and conclusions of the district court, and granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment.On September 29, 1986, Bradley filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.
On appeal, Bradley argues that the district court erred in failing to remand the case to the Appeals Council because of the ALJ's acceptance of the opinion of a non-treating physician over that of Bradley's treating physician.Bradley also argues that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.Finally, Bradley argues that this case should be remanded to the Appeals Council for further review in light of newly discovered evidence.This newly discovered evidence allegedly warranting remand is attached to Bradley's brief as an exhibit and consists of a letter dated October 27, 1986, written by Dr. E. Burke Evans, an orthopedic surgeon, to Bradley's insurance company.In that letter, Dr. Evans expresses the opinion that Bradley is totally disabled and the doubt that Bradley can be sufficiently rehabilitated to engage in office employment.
Herron v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1127, 1131(5th Cir.1986)(citation omitted).This sequential process is set out as follows:
The Secretary evaluates disability claims under the Social Security Act through a five-step process set forth in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(1986): (1) Is the claimant currently working?(2) Can the impairment be classified as "non-severe"?(3) Does the impairment meet the duration requirement of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(1)(A) and is it listed, or medically equivalent to, an impairment in Appendix 1?(4) Can the claimant perform her past relevant work? and (5) Can the claimant perform any other gainful job?
Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d 1168, 1170(5th Cir.1986)(citation omitted).In this case, the ALJ determined that Bradley was not working and had a severe impairment which was not listed in or medically equivalent to an impairment in Appendix 1.See20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(d).Turning to Bradley's residual functional capacity, the ALJ found that she retained the functional capacity to engage in her past relevant employment as an underwriter trainee, and therefore concluded that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.We are called upon to determine whether this finding is supported by substantial evidence.
Judicial review of decisions of the Secretary is limited by statute.See42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. Astrue, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-710
...the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.'" Martinez, 64 F.3d at 176 (quoting Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987)). Moreover, regardless of the opinions and diagnoses of medical sources, "'the ALJ has sole responsibility for determining......
-
Ferguson v. Secretary of HHS
...physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion. Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir.1993); Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir.1987); see also Milam v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1284, 1287 (5th Cir.1986) (treating physician's determination that plaintiff was disabl......
-
Hector v. Barnhart
...the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion. See Oldham, 660 F.2d at 1084; accord Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir.1987). Furthermore, it is within the ALJ's sound discretion whether to solicit the assistance of medical experts at the administ......
-
Nehlig v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin.
...(2) whether there is a reasonable probability that this new evidence would change the outcome of the ALJ's decision. See Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir.1987). The new evidence offered by plaintiff, namely an assessment of plaintiff's ability to perform physical work-related activi......
-
Issue topics
...work, because the treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record); Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987) (reaffirming that although the opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to more weight than the opinion o......
-
Table of Cases
...(8th Cir. June 20, 2008), 8th-10, 8th-08 Bradley v. Bowen , 660 F. Supp. 276, 279 (W.D. Ark. 1987), §§ 316.4, 607.1 Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987), §§ 203.7, 1203.6 Bradley v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs ., 862 F.2d 1224, 1227-28 (6th Cir. 1988), § 1105.8 Bra......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...of HHS , 919 F. Supp. 1012, 1020 (E.D. Tex. 1996), citing Spellman v. Shalala , 1 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5 th Cir. 1993); Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5 th Cir. 1987); and Milam v. Bowen , 782 F.2d 1284, 1287 (5 th Cir. 1986). c. Eighth Circuit In a fibromyalgia case where the diagnos......
-
Issue Topics
...work, because the treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record); Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987) (reaffirming that although the opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to more weight than the opinion o......