Cass v. Shalala

• Decision Date: 27 October 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-3919,92-3919
• Citation: 8 F.3d 552
• Parties: , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 17532A Judy CASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 552

8 F.3d 552

42 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 533, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 17532A

Judy CASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-3919.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. 29, 1993.

Decided Oct. 27, 1993.

Frederick J. Daley, Marcie E. Goldbloom (argued), Chicago, IL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Judy Cass, pro se.

Sheila H. Swanson, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Region V, Office of Gen. Counsel (argued), Chicago, IL, Richard D. Humphrey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of U.S. Atty., Madison, WI, for defendant-appellee.

Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

In this case, Judy Cass ("Plaintiff"), complains that she suffers from a disabling condition known as Somatoform Pain Disorder ("SPD"). According to Plaintiff, the pain and debilitating effects of her SPD preclude her from performing even light duty employment, thus entitling her to federal disability benefits and supplemental income under the Social Security Act ("SSA"). 42 U.S.C. §§ 416, 423 & 1382. Initially the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Defendant") denied Plaintiff's disability claim. Then, after a full hearing, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") also found that Plaintiff did not suffer from a disability, as defined by the SSA, confirming Defendant's initial decision. Unsatisfied, Plaintiff appealed the decision to an Administrative Appeal Judge ("AAJ"). Plaintiff then exercised her right to appeal an administrative decision to the district court. The district court found no error in the ALJ's original findings. We AFFIRM the district court.

I. Facts

Plaintiff, a forty-nine year old former dental lab technician claims that a disability has prevented her from working at any job since March 23, 1986. Complaining of chronic pain in her neck, arms, elbows, hips and other joints, fatigue, lethargy, sexual frigidity, and an inability to concentrate, Plaintiff sought medical help, consulting numerous professionals including rheumatologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and a chiropractor. This body of medical expertise eventually indicated that Plaintiff suffered from SPD--the psychological malady where a patient complains of numerous pains for which there is no pathophysiologic explanation. Allegedly unable to work because of her SPD, Plaintiff applied for federal disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416, 423 & 1382. After considering her claim, Defendant denied Plaintiff's application. Accompanied by counsel and armed with medical expert testimony, Plaintiff appealed her case to an ALJ. After considering the testimony of the vocational ¹ and medical experts, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's claim for disability benefits finding that Plaintiff did not suffer from a disability as defined by SSA, and that she could perform light duty work in the economy near her home. Plaintiff appealed. After the requisite administrative appeal, Plaintiff sought relief in the district court. After a hearing a federal magistrate filed a report with the court, agreeing with the ALJ's conclusions. In affirming the ALJ's decision the district court adopted the magistrate's report in its entirety. Plaintiff now appeals her claim to this court, arguing that the ALJ, AAJ, Magistrate, and district court each unfairly evaluated the significance of her SPD, erroneously concluded that she could still be employed in light duty work, and wrongly denied her disability benefits. We note our jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and AFFIRM the district court's decision.

II. Analysis

In her appeal, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly applied the law in the following two ways: (A) when considering the extent of Plaintiff's ability to perform even light work, the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff's SPD limitations consistently, and (B) when asking Defendant's vocational expert an employment hypothetical question, the ALJ failed to accurately summarize Plaintiff's SPD condition.

Essentially, each of Plaintiff's arguments claim that the ALJ lacked sufficient evidence to support his conclusions regarding Plaintiff's alleged disability. Congress has specified this court's jurisdiction and standard of review when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in appeals concerning SSA disability benefits. Under the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Congress explained that when reviewing an appeal against the HHS Secretary, "[t]he findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has held that while a mere scintilla of proof will not suffice to uphold the Secretary's findings, the standard of substantial evidence requires no more than "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) (citation omitted). See also Ehrhart v. Secretary, 969 F.2d 534, 538 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that when the HHS Secretary denies disability benefits, "substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of proof, instead requiring such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion") (citation omitted); Anderson v. Bowen, 868 F.2d 921, 923 (7th Cir.1989) ("Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept ... taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight"). Furthermore, this court has stated that in light of our limited jurisdiction we cannot substitute our own judgment for that of the HHS Secretary by reweighing the evidence to decide whether a claimant is in fact disabled. Ehrhart, 969 F.2d at 538. The issue before this court is not whether Plaintiff is disabled, but rather whether the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. For the following reasons, we hold that the ALJ's findings were sufficiently supported to pass muster under our deferential standard of review.

A. Extent of Disability

Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to consider the SPD's full effects in finding Plaintiff not disabled. In determining the extent of Plaintiff's disability, the Secretary must consider the physical abilities, mental impairments and any other impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545; 416.945. In making such assessments the Secretary is entitled to rely on the conclusions of qualified expert medical professionals. Moothart v. Bowen, 934 F.2d 114, 116 (7th Cir.1991) (holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the Secretary's decision to deny benefits).

At Plaintiff's hearing the ALJ received the following testimony from qualified medical experts: (1) Plaintiff had only "moderate" restriction in her activities of daily living, (2) she "often" had deficiencies of concentration, (3) she would be "good" in her ability to interact with the public, and (4) she had a "fair" ability to tolerate work stress. See Cass v. Sullivan, 91-C-0982-C, Mag. Report and Recommendation at 6-7, 1992 WL 547703 (Magis.Ct.W.D.Wis.1992) (hereinafter "Magistrate's Report "). Further, according to the record, at Plaintiff's hearing the ALJ also fully considered the evidence pertaining to the extent of Plaintiff's SPD pain when reducing her employment capacity from "medium exertion" to ...