Brewster v. Heckler, 85-1216
| Decision Date | 26 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1216,85-1216 |
| Citation | 786 F.2d 581 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,713 Wilson BREWSTER, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee. |
Gary S. Turetsky (argued), Meyer Silver, Silver & Silver, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Heather Anderson (argued), Kathleen Hopkins, Michael Leonard, DHHS/OGC/Office of the Regional Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before GARTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges and BISSELL, District Judge. *
Claimant/appellant Wilson Brewster applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits on December 8, 1982, alleging disability as of April 24, 1982 resulting from a stroke. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Following an administrative hearing, the ALJ concluded that Brewster retained the ability to perform his past relevant work as a construction foreman, and consequently was not disabled under the statute. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision on September 30, 1983. Brewster sought review of the Secretary's decision in district court, and upon the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, that court granted the Secretary's motion by order entered February 11, 1985. Brewster thereupon filed this timely appeal. We reverse.
Brewster, a 64 year old male with a seventh grade education, had worked in heavy construction for most of his adult life, occupying the position of labor foreman from 1964 to 1978. 1
On April 22, 1982, Brewster suffered a cerebrovascular accident, or stroke. Doctors at Albert Einstein Medical Center concluded that Brewster had suffered from hypertensive cardiovascular disease, right hemiparesis with aphasia, and intracerebral hemorrhage.
Following an 11-day hospital stay, during which Brewster underwent extensive physical therapy, Brewster's speech improved and he regained most of the control of his right leg, arm and hand. From May 20, 1982 until July 1, 1982, Brewster received outpatient care. At the end of that period, hospital records revealed that despite his earlier slow and difficult speech and upper body problems, Brewster had returned to near normal function.
On November 30, 1982, Brewster was examined by Dr. Edward S. Singer, Brewster's treating cardiologist. In his report, Singer concluded that Brewster "continues to be completely disabled" and that he should not engage "in any major physical activities including lifting heavy objects or strenuous activities."
In January 1983, Brewster was examined at the request of the Social Security Administration by a consulting physician, Dr. Guillermo DeLeon, an otorhinolaryngologist and psychiatrist. Dr. DeLeon observed that Brewster walked slowly and dragged his right leg to a moderate degree. In the course of a motor examination, Dr. DeLeon noted that Brewster suffered from mild to moderate right hemiparesis and could not fully extend his right wrist. His grasp was of moderate strength and his hand movements were clumsy. Dr. DeLeon's report noted that Brewster could write his name, but that his writing deteriorated rapidly after a few words. DeLeon observed that Brewster spoke in short sentences, but that his speech was well articulated and lacked dyarthria. Dr. DeLeon concluded that Brewster suffered from mild to moderate right hemiparesis with slight dysphasia, findings consistent with Brewster's earlier intracerebral hemorrhage.
At the request of the Secretary, Dr. Andrew J. Kapcar, a pathologist, reviewed the medical evidence of record. In two Residual Functional Capacity Assessments based on his study of Brewster's medical records (but without examining Brewster) Kapcar concluded that Brewster could lift or carry up to twenty pounds and frequently lift or carry ten pounds. He further estimated that Brewster was slightly limited in the use of his right hand and leg for pushing and pulling, but that he could stand, walk or sit for six hours out of an eight hour working day.
At the administrative hearing, Brewster testified that his right hand and arm problems prevented him from working and that he lacked strength in his right hand to pick up and hold things. Brewster stated that he experienced pain when he raised his arm above his shoulder. Brewster testified that he walked about three blocks a day and that he dragged his right leg when he climbed stairs. It was Brewster's belief that he could not return to his previous job as a labor foreman because he would be unable to run from place to place or to climb stairs. In his job as a foreman, Brewster testified that he walked around all day and climbed stairs, but did not do any significant lifting, carrying, bending or kneeling. 2
In order to establish eligibility for social security disability insurance, a claimant has the burden of demonstrating that he is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(1)(A). To determine whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits, the Secretary applies a sequential five-step evaluation process pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520. Under that five step analysis, the Secretary determines first whether an individual is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If that individual is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he will be found not disabled regardless of the medical findings. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(b). If an individual is found not to be engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Secretary will determine whether the medical evidence indicates that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(c). If the Secretary determines that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment, the Secretary will next determine whether the impairment meets or equals a list of impairments in Appendix I of sub-part P of Regulations No. 4 of the Code of Regulations. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d). If the individual meets or equals the list of impairments, the claimant will be found disabled. If he does not, the Secretary must determine if the individual is capable of performing his past relevant work considering his severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(e). If the Secretary determines that the individual is not capable of performing his past relevant work, then she must determine whether, considering the claimant's age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity, he is capable of performing other work which exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(f).
The claimant bears the initial burden of establishing that he is incapable of performing his past relevant work due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. See Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110, 114 (3d Cir.1983).
Here, the Secretary determined that Brewster had demonstrated that he suffered from a severe medical impairment, but that such impairment did not preclude his returning to his past relevant work as a labor foreman. Thus, the Secretary concluded his evaluation at the fourth step.
Brewster argues that the Secretary's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Brewster argues that the ALJ erred in holding that his past work as a labor foreman is not "strenuous," and that therefore his decision is contrary to the medical evidence supplied by Brewster's treating physician, Dr. Singer.
In reviewing a denial of benefits by the Secretary, this court applies the substantial evidence test.
This Court has defined substantial evidence as "such relevant evidence as a reasoning mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." ... This oft-cited language is not, however, a talismanic or self-executing formula for adjudication; rather, our decisions make clear that determination of the existence vel non of substantial evidence is not merely a quantitative exercise. A single piece of evidence will not satisfy the substantiality test if the Secretary ignores, or fails to resolve, a conflict created by countervailing evidence. Nor is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bair v. Colvin
...when unaccompanied by thorough written reports. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1065 (3d Cir. 1993) (referencing Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581, 585(3d Cir. 1986); Green v. Schweiker, 749 F.2d 1066, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)). This Court discussed the application of Mason in Carter v. Astrue,......
-
Colavito v. Apfel, Civil Action No. 99-854.
...evidence, he must adequately explain in the record his reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent advice. See Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581 (3d Cir.1986). III. Plaintiff claims that the Commissioner's decision that she was not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. Spec......
-
Claussen v. Chater
...the report had been considered, it alone would not constitute substantial evidence.10 Mason, 994 F.2d at 1065 (citing Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581, 585 (3d Cir.1986)); Green v. Schweiker, 749 F.2d 1066, 1071, n. 3 (3d Cir.1984) (citing O'Leary v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 1334, 1341 (8th Cir......
-
Hulstine v. Colvin
...326 F.3d 376, 381-82 (3d Cir. 2003); Burnett v. Commissioner of S.S.A., 220 F.3d 112, 121 22 (3d Cir. 2000); Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581, 585 (3d Cir. 1986)). Defendant responds that "[t]here is no requirement that the ALJ discuss in its opinion every tidbit of evidence included in th......
-
Case survey
...relevant work determination that is contrary to uncontroverted evidence presented by the claimant.” Id. , citing Brewster v. Heckler , 786 F.2d 581, 584 (3d Cir. 1986); Cotter v. Harris , 642 F.2d 700, 707 (3d Cir. 1981). (2) In Burnett , the court noted that despite the uncontroverted evid......
-
Table of cases
...(9th Cir. June 14, 2012), 7th-12, 9th-12 Brewster v. Barnhart , 366 F. Supp.2d 858, 874 (E.D. Mo. 2005), § 1105.1 Brewster v. Heckler , 786 F.2d 581, 584-85 (3d Cir. 1986), §§ 106.3, 203.7, 210.4 Brider v. Apfel , 18 F. Supp.2d 900 (N.D. Ill. 1998), §§ 203.1, 204.1, 205.2, 317.1, 107.12, 13......
-
Sequential evaluation process
...relevant work determination that is contrary to uncontroverted evidence presented by the claimant.” Id. , citing Brewster v. Heckler , 786 F.2d 581, 584 (3d Cir. 1986); Cotter v. Harris , 642 F.2d 700, 707 (3d Cir. 1981). (2) In Burnett , the court noted that despite the uncontroverted evid......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...force as a general matter, than they would have had if the doctor had treated or examined him.’” Id. , quoting Brewster v. Heckler , 786 F.2d 581, 585 (3d Cir. 1986) ( quoting Podedworny v. Harris , 745 F.2d 210, 217 (3d Cir. 1984)). The Third Circuit added that “a single piece of evidence ......