Butler v. Bowen
| Decision Date | 06 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1417,88-1417 |
| Citation | 865 F.2d 173 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 14452A Barbara BUTLER, Appellee, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Yvonne M. Ernzen, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Dewey L. Crepeau, Columbia, Mo., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services appeals an order of the district court reversing the Secretary's decision that Barbara Butler is not disabled. For the following reasons we reverse and remand this case to the district court with instructions.
Butler filed an application for social security benefits in August 1985. Butler's application was denied throughout the entire administrative process and she then sought judicial review of the Secretary's decision denying benefits. The district court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) determination that Butler was capable of returning to her former work as a nurse's aid was not supported by substantial evidence. The district court specifically rejected the ALJ's determination that Butler's subjective complaints of pain were not credible. In reversing and remanding the case to the Secretary, the district court noted that "the burden will be upon the Secretary to show that [Butler] is capable of engaging in some other type of employment activity."
On remand, a supplemental hearing before a different ALJ was held in which Butler provided additional testimony. The Secretary, however, did not produce any vocational expert testimony at the supplemental hearing. The ALJ again determined that Butler was not disabled.
The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's recommended decision with modifications, stating:
[T]he Appeals Council recognizes that once a finding is made that the claimant can no longer perform past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to establish what jobs the claimant can perform in the national economy.
* * *
* * *
With regard to the need of vocational expert testimony, the Council believes that the Secretary has satisfied the Court's requirement of identifying other jobs in the national economy by taking administrative notice of more than 200 separate unskilled occupations.
Once again Butler sought judicial review of the Secretary's decision. As stated by the district court in reviewing the Secretary's decision for the second time: "The issue before the Court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary's conclusions that, based on the medical-vocational guidelines, there are other jobs existing in the national economy which [Butler] can perform." The district court concluded that the Secretary erred in relying on the medical-vocational guidelines to establish that there are other jobs existing in the national economy which Butler can perform.
The district court granted Butler's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the Secretary for the sole purpose of awarding Butler benefits. The Secretary now appeals to this court.
In a social security case the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing that she is unable to engage in her past relevant work because of a medically determinable impairment. Talbott v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 511, 514 (8th Cir.1987). Once the claimant establishes the inability to engage in her past relevant work the burden shifts to the Secretary to prove that there exists work in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing. Lewis v. Heckler, 808 F.2d 1293, 1297 (8th Cir.1987).
In the present case Butler has established her inability to engage in her past relevant work as a nurse's aid. The district court so held, and we believe that its holding is based on substantial evidence. Thus, in its initial decision reversing the Secretary, the district court correctly noted that on remand the burden would be on the Secretary to prove that there was work in the national economy that Butler was capable of performing. The Secretary attempted to satisfy this burden by taking official notice of the medical-vocational guidelines.
We hold that the Secretary's reliance on the guidelines in this case is not supported by substantial evidence. The guidelines are properly used when a claimant's impairments are primarily exertional. See, e.g., Tucker v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 793, 795 (8th Cir.1985). When a claimant, such as Butler, suffers from a nonexertional impairment (low back pain and anxiety) that prevents her from engaging in the full range of activities contemplated under the guidelines then the Secretary may not rely on them to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harman v. Apfel
...of whether a district court chose incorrectly between remanding for payment and remanding for further proceedings. See Butler v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 173 (8th Cir. 1989). In Butler, the district court remanded for payment of benefits but, on the Secretary's appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that t......
-
Field v. Chater, Civil No. 94-407-P-H.
...further delays would be "unduly burdensome" and it was "very doubtful" Secretary could meet his burden on remand); Butler v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 173, 175 (8th Cir.1989) (remand for further factfinding appropriate unless outcome is clear regardless of who bears burden of proof); Harris v. Secret......
-
Hall v. Halter, Docket No. 00-171-B (D. Me. 4/9/2001), Docket No. 00-171-B.
...decision, Chester v. Callahan, 193 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1999), and decisions of other circuit courts of appeal, including Butler v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 173 (8th Cir. 1989), that remand for payment of benefits is inappropriate. For reasons that I have previously articulated, see, e.g., Freeman v. A......
-
Brown v. Sullivan
...of jobs in substantial numbers in the national economy which Brown could have performed as of June 30, 1983. See Butler v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 173, 174 (8th Cir.1989). The incorrect allocation of the burden of proof based on an erroneous finding that the claimant can return to his prior work re......