Conn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Decision Date | 06 February 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 94-5114,94-5114 |
Citation | 51 F.3d 607 |
Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14547B Kenneth R. CONN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Dennis M. Stutsman (briefed), Northeast Kentucky Legal Services, Morehead, KY, for plaintiff-appellant.
John S. Osborn, III, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed), Lexington, KY, for defendant-appellee.
Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge; WEBER, District Judge. **
This appeal challenges the denial of social security benefits for back pain, inflammatory arthropathy (arthritis-type condition) and right-eye blindness. On behalf of Secretary of HHS, ALJ denied benefits, the Appeals Council denied claimant's request for review and District Court found substantial evidence to support ALJ decision.
First, claimant does not meet the requirements of Listing 1.02, which sets out the necessary impairments to find disability for arthritis-type diseases.
The claimant Kenneth Conn, a 39-year-old male, complained of a wide variety of maladies, including back, neck, chest, joint and stomach pain, as well as headaches, dizziness, insomnia, fatigue and gastritis. Claimant is functionally illiterate (sixth-grade education) and has worked as a gas station attendant, concrete truck driver and brush clearer for a tree service in the past. The ALJ found that claimant's ailments prevent him from working at his past relevant work. (ALJ Findings at 8, J.A. at 20). After reviewing the medical evidence and hearing the testimony of claimant and his wife, however, the ALJ found that plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain were not supported by objective clinical evidence to the extent alleged. (ALJ Findings at 7, J.A. at 19). The evidence showed slight degeneration of two lumbar discs and a slight bulging in the lumbar region resulting in limitation in range of motion and flexibility, but normal sensation and reflexes in the extremities. On at least one occasion, claimant has been diagnosed with tenderness in the hands, knees and ankles, presumably due to the arthritic condition. The record established right-eye blindness and inflammatory arthropathy that limits the claimant to a reduced range of sedentary work but does not totally disable him. (Findings of ALJ at 7-8, J.A. at 19-2).
Listing 1.02 of disabling diseases and conditions concerns arthritis and other inflammatory joint diseases. Claimant, however, does not meet the requirements on the face of Listing 1.02, including the durational requirement of the condition. In addition to requiring a "history of persistent joint pain, swelling and tenderness," the Listing has a durational requirement of 12 months with persistent symptoms despite three months of prescribed therapy. Listing 1.02. Claimant admits the record does not contain evidence that he meets the durational requirement. (Appellant's brief at 10-11) Claimant, however, states that the ALJ may find he "meets or equals" the Listing due to his arthritis combined with his back pain and right-eye blindness and is therefore disabled. While claimant is correct that the ALJ may find claimant "meets or equals" the Listing based on the evidence and find him disabled, the ALJ chose not to do so here. The ALJ properly took account of the medical evidence and the testimony of claimant and his wife regarding his symptoms, pain and fatigue and decided that Claimant did not meet Listing 1.02. (Findings of ALJ at 5-6, J.A. at 17-18). There is substantial evidence in the record to support this finding.
Second, the ALJ properly relied on the testimony of the vocational expert. Upon a finding that claimant could not perform his past relevant work, the burden shifted to the Secretary to demonstrate that claimant has the residual functional capacity to undertake some type of work and that the type of work is available in significant numbers in the national economy. The Secretary may use vocational experts to meet its burden.
Claimant first argues that the hypotheticals given by the ALJ to the vocational expert did not properly address his limitations, particularly the joint pain in his hands. (Appellant's brief at 12). The most recent medical evidence, however, did not find anything wrong with claimant's hands. The only evidence of anything wrong with claimant's hands was claimant's own testimony that his hands became swollen and sore when he held anything for a period of time. The ALJ chose not to find this testimony credible based on the lack of objective clinical support and therefore did not ask a hypothetical based on this particular limitation.
Claimant also appears to challenge the ALJ's determination that he is not disabled because the ALJ did not include a hypothetical that takes into consideration any limitation on the frequency of time off that claimant would need due to his joint pain and swelling. (Appellant's brief at 12). First, claimant bases this error on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skaggs v. Berryhill
...ALJ may rely on testimony from a vocational expert "even if it is inconsistent with the job descriptions" set forth in the DOT. 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir. 1995). Social Security Ruling 00-4p imposes on the ALJ an affirmative duty to ask the vocational expert whether there is a conflict betw......
-
Payne v. Kijakazi
... ... (6th Cir. 1993); Wyatt v. Sec'y of Health & Human ... Servs. , 974 F.2d 680, 683 (6th Cir ... 611, 616 (6th Cir. 2003); Conn v. Sec'y of HHS , ... 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir ... ...
-
Gorecki v. Massanari
...split as to how expert vocational testimony should be handled. Defendants and the Magistrate Judge rely on Conn v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir.1995) arguing that the ALJ may rely on the testimony of the vocational expert even if the testimony is inconsisten......
-
Ward v. Astrue
...regulations do not require the Commissioner or the VE to rely on classifications in the DOT." Id. (citing Con v. Sec'y of Health and Human Services, 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir. 1995). This frees courts to rely on the VE's testimony "even if it is inconsistent with the DOT." Id. The Eleventh ......
-
Issue topics
...to be functionally illiterate, despite the fact that he had a sixth grade education. Conn v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs ., 51 F.3d 607, 609 (6 th Cir. 1995). Despite “overwhelming evidence” of the claimant’s illiteracy, the ALJ erroneously concluded that the claimant possessed a ma......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...on the VE’s testimony, even though such testimony conflicted with the information in the DOT. Conn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6 th Cir. 1995). e. Seventh Circuit (1) In Donohue v. Barnhart , 279 F.3d 441, 444 (7 th Cir. 2002), the claimant argued that the VE’s tes......
-
The Hearing
...more questions you ask, the more opportunity the VE will have to explain his or her position. At the other extreme is Conn v. Secretary , 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir. 1995), which seems to say that any VE opinion, no matter how it conflicts with the DOT, may be substantial evidence. Other cas......
-
Table of Cases
...Connour v. Massanari, 173 F. Supp.2d 785 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2001), §§ 107.9, 203.1, 203.11 Conn v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir. 1995), 6th-03, §§ 210.12, 107.5, 1107.5, 1210.12 Table of Cases Conrad v. Barnhart , 434 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2006), 7th-......