Charles v. Barnhart

Decision Date26 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-1371.,03-1371.
Citation375 F.3d 777
PartiesSandra L. CHARLES, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Edward C. Olson, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Mona Ahmed, argued Chicago, IL (Thomas B. Heffelfinger and Gary A. Sultz, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BYE, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Sandra L. Charles appeals the district court's1 decision affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of her claim for Social Security disability benefits. In denying benefits, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that although Charles could not return to her past work, she could perform a significant number of jobs in the regional and national economy and, thus, she was not disabled. Because the decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

I. Background

Charles worked as an assembler until 1995 when her employer eliminated her job due to restructuring. Charles worked at another assembly job for approximately six months before quitting. She claimed that she quit this job because she was experiencing shoulder pain, but she previously reported that she stopped working because her employer would not fill out an injury report. Charles also worked briefly at a seafood shop, a job that required constant bending. Charles said she left this job because it was too strenuous. Charles, who earned a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) in 1991, was fifty-two years old when the ALJ denied her application for benefits.2

Charles's claim alleged she had been disabled since April 15, 1998, due to back and neck injuries, arthritis, and a leg fracture. She said she could not work because she could not lift more than nineteen pounds and could not sit or stand much. Charles reported that her activities included light cooking, washing dishes, making beds, and vacuuming. She also said she walked, shopped at flea markets for recreation, visited family members, and drove to appointments and to the grocery store.

At the administrative hearing on April 27, 1999, Charles testified that she lived in a two-story home, drove herself to the hearing, and was able to care for her personal hygiene, dressing, and bathing. Charles said she did little cooking, but was able to wash dishes, do laundry (with help carrying), and shop for groceries. She said vacuuming and mopping, which required bending, were difficult. Charles testified that she liked to read and work outside in her flower garden. Charles testified that her physician told her not to lift over twenty pounds or bend repetitively. She stated she could sit for about fifteen to twenty minutes, stand about ten to fifteen minutes, and had no problem walking. She said she moved frequently in order to alleviate back pain and used an anti-inflammatory medication once a day. Charles reported that a workers' compensation claim related to her injuries was still pending.

Charles injured her lower back and ultimately underwent disc surgery in 1992. In 1993, a functional capacity evaluation showed that Charles could perform light work but should avoid prolonged or repetitive neck flexion and should change positions every thirty minutes. Charles returned to light work following the surgery, and she continued to work until she was laid off in 1995.

Charles visited her family physician, Lee Rock, M.D., for periodic check-ups, and she occasionally had other medical complaints. Charles received monthly injections of vitamin B12 beginning in 1996. In April 1996, Charles reported shoulder "discomfort" related to a workers' compensation injury, which Dr. Rock attributed to overuse bursitis. In August 1996, Charles complained of fatigue, and Dr. Rock prescribed Synthroid (a thyroid hormone replacement) to treat Charles's underactive thyroid.

In October 1996, Charles saw a rheumatologist, Edward Ford, M.D., complaining of joint pain in her feet, hands, shoulder, and thigh. Dr. Ford's examination revealed no joint inflammation or abnormalities other than osteoarthritis. He attributed Charles's joint pain to osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disease, and deconditioning, and he recommended a rehabilitation program. Noting the recent diagnosis of hypothyroidism, Dr. Ford commented that thyroid disease "can have musculoskeletal ramifications," and he predicted that Charles would regain strength and stamina as her thyroid status normalized.

In January 1997, Charles told Dr. Rock that she experienced left shoulder pain after starting a swimming program. Dr. Rock noted that to the extent Charles's exercise instructor was concerned about functional restrictions, the instructor should review the functional capacity evaluation and "start with those limitations." In August 1997, Charles reported less arthritis-like pain, and in September 1997, she said she felt somewhat fatigued at times. In October 1997, Charles complained of ringing in her ears. Audiologist M. Cheple noted some unusual hearing test results and indicated Charles could discuss with Dr. Rock the possibility of additional testing.

At the request of the state disability evaluation agency, Lawrence Jedlicka, M.D., examined Charles in July 1998. Charles reported that she fractured her left leg in 1990, but said it no longer bothered her. She also reported intermittent low back pain and neck pain. Cervical spine x-rays revealed mild arthritis at C4-5 and "likely" degenerative disc disease at multiple levels without any loss of disc height. Lumbar spine x-rays showed normal alignment with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease at multiple levels. Dr. Jedlicka's examination revealed mildly limited neck range of motion and mild neck tenderness and muscle spasm, along with limited lumbar motion and muscle spasm. Dr. Jedlicka noted normal muscle strength, tone, and mass; present and symmetric reflexes; and no sensory deficit. Dr. Jedlicka observed that Charles could stand, walk, stand on one foot, walk on her heels and toes, get on and off the examination table, reach overhead, and undress without difficulty. Dr. Jedlicka's impression was cervical and lumbar strain.

Charles returned to Dr. Rock in August 1998 complaining of a recurrence of low back pain with no identifiable cause. Dr. Rock's examination of Charles revealed adequate range of motion, good strength, normal reflexes (other than an absent ankle reflex, which was normal for Charles) and normal sensation. Dr. Rock recommended the "judicious" use of Darvocet,3 and instructed Charles to return if she had additional problems.

The record included several opinions about Charles's ability to perform work-related activities. Following his July 1998 examination, Dr. Jedlicka concluded Charles could lift ten pounds intermittently and could stand/walk or sit for ten minutes at a time before changing positions, but should avoid strenuous or frequent bending, pushing, and pulling. Frances Peccoraro, M.D., reviewed the record evidence (including Dr. Jedlicka's examination report) in July 1998. Dr. Peccoraro indicated Charles could lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, and could both stand/walk and sit for about six hours in an eight-hour work day. Thomas Chisholm, M.D., reviewed the evidence (including Dr. Rock's August 1998 office note) in October 1998. He agreed with Dr. Peccoraro's assessment that Charles could perform light work.

Physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist Andrew Steiner, M.D., appeared at the administrative hearing and testified as a medical expert. Dr. Steiner testified that the record established treatment for low back pain (related to a strain, degenerative disc disease, and a past surgical procedure), neck pain (probably related to degenerative disc disease), tinnitis and slight hearing loss, and anemia. Dr. Steiner commented that the record did not document neurological loss related to Charles's degenerative disc disease. He indicated that Charles could lift ten pounds and could spend an unlimited amount of time on her feet if she were given the opportunity to move around. Dr. Steiner recommended against repetitive neck motion as well as repetitive bending, twisting, stooping, kneeling, and crawling.

Vocational expert Juletta Harren testified at the administrative hearing. The ALJ asked Harren to assume a hypothetical individual with low back pain related to degenerative joint disease and a prior surgical laminectomy, as well as neck pain and anemia. The hypothetical individual could lift ten pounds occasionally and could sit or stand in one place for only ten to fifteen minutes at a time, but could otherwise be on her feet for an unlimited period of time as long as she had the opportunity to move around. The hypothetical individual was further limited to work that did not involve repetitive neck motion, repetitive bending, twisting or kneeling, or crouching, or crawling. Harren testified that an individual of Charles's age, education, and work history with the given limitations could make a successful vocational adjustment to a variety of jobs, including a security guard, stock checker, machine tender, and office clerk. Harren further testified that in Minnesota about 12,500 such jobs existed that would accommodate the limitations set forth in the hypothetical.

Following the hearing, Charles submitted a letter from Dr. Rock dated April 30, 1999. Dr. Rock indicated that he had reviewed Dr. Jedlicka's examination and "would not disagree with his conclusions or modify the restrictions." Dr. Rock added that, at Charles's last evaluation, he advised her not to stand for more than four hours per work day. He also stated that, "[i]nitially, when she returned to work, she should limit it to a 4-hour workday until such time that she has had to acclimate."

The ALJ concluded, under step four of the five-step sequential evaluation, that Charles could not return to her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
183 cases
  • Englerth v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 29, 2016
    ...RFC remains on the claimant, even when the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five."); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 782 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five to submit evidence of other work in the national econom......
  • Johnston v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 30, 2016
    ...RFC remains on the claimant, even when the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five."); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 782 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five to submit evidence of other work in the national econom......
  • Frieden v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • September 11, 2015
    ...RFC remains on the claimant, even when the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five."); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 782 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five to submit evidence of other work in the national econom......
  • Stephens v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • May 14, 2012
    ...RFC remains on the claimant, even when the burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five."); Charles v. Barnhart, 375 F.3d 777, 782 n.5 (8th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he burden of production shifts to the Commissioner at step five to submit evidence of other work in the national econom......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 353 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 13, 2004), D.C.-04 Casey v. Astrue , 503 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007), 8th-07 Charles v. Barnhart , 375 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. July 26, 2004), 8th-04 Chester v. Callahan , 193 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. Sept. 30, 1999), 1st-99 Choate v. Barnhart , 457 F.3d 865 (8th Cir......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...(10th Cir. June 26, 2012), 10th-12 Charbonneau v. Apfel , 76 F. Supp.2d 98 (D. Mass. Nov. 24, 1999), §§ 107.6, 210.5 Charles v. Barnhart , 375 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. July 26, 2004), 8th-04 Chaudhry v. Astrue , 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2012), 9th-12 Chavez v. Barnhart , 298 F. Supp.2d 120......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ...Case Index-127 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED Casey v. Astrue , 503 F.3d 687 (8 th Cir. Oct. 4, 2007), 8 th -07 Charles v. Barnhart , 375 F.3d 777 (8 th Cir. July 26, 2004), 8 th -04 Chester v. Callahan , 193 F.3d 10 (1 st Cir. Sept. 30, 1999), 1 st -99 Choate v. Barnhart , 457 F.3d 865 (......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...26, 2012), 10th-12 Charbonneau v. Apfel , 76 F. Supp.2d 98 (D. Mass. Nov. 24, 1999), §§ 107.6, 210.5 Table of Cases Charles v. Barnhart , 375 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. July 26, 2004), 8th-04 Chaudhry v. Astrue , 688 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2012), 9th-12 Chavez v. Barnhart , 298 F. Supp.2d 1207......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT