Derrig v. Chater
| Decision Date | 29 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. C 93-3079.,C 93-3079. |
| Citation | 905 F. Supp. 584 |
| Parties | Edward DERRIG, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Danny Wilmoth of Legal Services Corporation of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa, for Plaintiff Edward Derrig.
Lawrence Kudej of United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for Defendant Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 589
A. Procedural Background ..................................................... 589
B. Factual Background ........................................................ 589
C. The Court's Jurisdictional Basis .......................................... 594
II. ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 595
A. The "Substantial Evidence" Standard ....................................... 595
B. The Polaski Standard and Subjective Pain Credibility Determinations ....... 596
C. Relative Burdens of Proof ................................................. 597
D. Review of the ALJ's Decision .............................................. 597
1. Derrig's disability insured status ..................................... 597
2. The ALJ's analysis of Derrig's subjective pain complaints .............. 598
a. Derrig's prior application for benefits ............................. 598
b. Inconsistencies regarding Derrig's physical impairments ............. 598
c. Evidence regarding Derrig's mental impairments ...................... 600
d. Inconsistencies regarding Derrig's daily and work-related activities. 601
3. S.S.R. 85-15 and the hypothetical questions ............................ 602
4. Disability under POMS .................................................. 603
III. CONCLUSION ................................................................... 604
This social security disability case requires the court to analyze the employment capabilities of an individual who has both physical and mental impairments that the Secretary has previously deemed insufficient to qualify him for benefits on two prior occasions. Although the plaintiff did not appeal the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) initial decision, he did appeal the ALJ's second denial of benefits. The issue before the court is whether the final decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges he has both physical and mental impairments which preclude him from performing his past relevant work or any other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. On the other hand, defendant argues the plaintiff has not met his burden of showing he cannot return to his past relevant work. Consequently, the court is presented with the arduous task of examining the voluminous record which chronicles the plaintiff's physical and mental history compiled both before and after the initial decision denying the plaintiff benefits and ultimately discovering if the ALJ's decision to deny this plaintiff social security disability benefits was, in fact, a decision supported by substantial evidence.
Derrig filed an application for social security disability benefits under Title II on November 27, 1990, (Tr. 217.), alleging he became disabled on March 1, 1989.2 (Tr. 217.). His application was denied initially on March 5, 1991, (Tr. 230.), and after reconsideration on May 7, 1991. (Tr. 247.). An administrative hearing was held concerning this matter on April 26, 1993, after which the ALJ determined Derrig was not disabled and not entitled to social security disability benefits on May 27, 1993. (Tr. 18.). On August 12, 1993, Derrig requested review of the ALJ's decision from the Social Security Administration Appeals Council. (Tr. 11.). On October 15, 1993, the Appeals Council denied Derrig's request and stated that "the ALJ's decision stands as the final decision of the Secretary in your case." (Tr. 8-9.). Because the Appeals Council's October 15, 1993 letter denying Derrig's request represented the final determination of the Secretary, and because Derrig filed this action on December 10, 1993, there is no dispute that Derrig's complaint was timely filed with this court. Therefore, Derrig is entitled to a review of his case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court will now begin its analysis of the Secretary's decision by examining the factual background of the case.
The plaintiff in this case is Edward Derrig, a 39-year-old man from Fort Dodge, Iowa, (Tr. 65.), who is five feet, eight inches tall and who weighs approximately 130 pounds. (Tr. 88.). Although Derrig has completed twelve grades of school in special education, (Tr. 66.), Derrig is unable to read or write. (Tr. 68.).
Derrig suffers from contact dermatitis,3 primarily on his hands due to allergies to chemicals, petroleum products, and fertilizer. (Tr. 71.). In addition, Derrig alleges he has had muscle spasms in his neck and back since June 1990, although Derrig did not seek treatment for these spasms until September 1990. (Tr. 311.). At that time, Derrig told his treating physician, Dr. Kirk C. Koithan, that he had only had these spasms for two weeks. (Tr. 311.). Derrig sought treatment again for back pain in December 1990. (Tr. 312.). Prior to his two visits in 1990, Derrig had sought treatment for other acute ailments in 1989, unrelated to any alleged neck or back pain. (Tr. 305-06.). Also, in 1990, Derrig sought treatment after he injured his right eye in a fight, (Tr. 306.), and after he stepped on a needle. (Tr. 329.). Additionally, in 1990, Derrig obtained treatment for contact dermatitis and an injured finger. (Tr. 306-10.). On February 18, 1991, upon seeing Dr. Dan Warlick, another physician, for neck and back pain, Derrig reported to Dr. Warlick that he had suffered these symptoms for eight or nine years. (Tr. 339.). Dr. Warlick examined Derrig and found that, although Derrig did complain of muscle spasms in his neck and back, he did not have any complaints regarding limitations of his activity. Dr. Warlick further noted that Derrig's mobility of his neck and back were normal except that his ability to bend to each side was "symmetrical, although perhaps somewhat decreased from normal." (Tr. 340.). Dr. Warlick did not have a plan for Derrig's treatment; rather, he noted that "the patient returned to the care of his treating physician." (Tr. 340.). On February 27, 1991, Derrig once again saw his treating physician, Dr. Koithan, because his hands had been breaking out due to his allergies. (Tr. 312.). Dr. Koithan also noted that Derrig stated he had been "doing a lot of physical labor replacing an engine in his car." (Tr. 312.). At this time, Derrig made no complaints to Dr. Koithan regarding any neck or back pain. (Tr. 312.). In March 1991, he sought treatment for a contusion on his left chest wall, resulting from a slip-and-fall incident he received while playing with his children. (Tr. 313.).
Despite Derrig's physical ailments, both parties seem to agree that Derrig's primary impairments are mental impairments. At the request of the Secretary, Derrig saw doctors David Johnson and Dan Rogers, clinical psychologists on February 4, 1992. (Tr. 360.). The psychologists concluded Derrig has borderline intellectual capacity4 and adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features.5 At this time, Derrig's I.Q. score on the WAIS-R examination was verbal-74; performance-85; and full-scale-79. (Tr. 360.). On the individual subtests wherein a score of ten is average, Derrig's scores were all below ten, and out of eleven subtests, six of the scores were five or below. (Tr. 360.). Based on Derrig's scores, Drs. Johnson and Rogers determined Derrig would be moderately limited in his ability to remember and understand instructions, procedures and locations; to carry out instructions; to maintain attention, concentration and pace; to interact appropriately with supervisors, co-workers, and the public; and to use good judgment and respond appropriately to changes in the workplace. (Tr. 361.). As part of their examination, the doctors rated Derrig's ability to complete work-related activities of a mental nature. In the fifteen areas rated, on a scale with a range of very good/good/fair/ poor/none, Derrig scored in the "fair" range on twelve of the fifteen areas. These categories included the ability to relate to co-workers; deal with the public; use judgment; deal with work stresses; function independently; maintain attention and concentration; understand, remember and carry out complex job instructions; understand, remember and carry out detailed but not complex instructions; maintain personal appearance; behave in an emotionally stable manner; relate predictably in social situations; and demonstrate reliability. (Tr. 362-63). In the other three categories, Derrig scored in the "good" range. These three categories included the ability to follow work rules; interact with supervisors; understand, remember, and carry out simple job instructions. (Tr. 362-63.).
Regarding his work history, Derrig has held several jobs, each for a short period of time. Derrig worked as a grounds keeper at the Friendship Haven for one year, working approximately four days per week, six hours per day; however, he left that job because he was allergic to the chemicals and fertilizer to which he was exposed while working. (Tr. 70.). Derrig also washed cars and trucks part-time for six months;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. Colvin
...July 8, 2008) (reversing a decision for, among other issues, giving an anonymous letter "little weight"), with Derrig v. Chater, 905 F. Supp. 584, 601-02 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (affirming a decision finding statements from an anonymous phone call cumulative); see also Tuck v. Commissioner, No. 07......
- Thomas v. Newkirk
-
Case survey
...that impose additional and significant work-related limitation of function may support an equivalence determination. Derrig v. Chater , 905 F. Supp. 584, 603 (N.D. Iowa 1995), citing POMS §DI24515.056D(1)(C). “It should be noted that generally the higher the IQ, the less likely medical equi......
-
Source of law issues
...of her decision to proceed without a representative, as required by HALLEX I-2-652.” g. Eighth Circuit (1) In Derrig v. Chater , 905 F. Supp. 584, 603 (N.D. Iowa 1995), the court stated: The POMS is a policy and procedural manual issued to help clarify the regulations for the Social Securit......
-
Issue topics
...impose additional and significant work-related limitation of function may support an equivalence of determination.” Derrig v. Chater , 905 F. Supp. 584, 603 (N.D. Iowa 1995), citing POMS § DI24515.056D(1)(c). The court stated that, in general, the higher the IQ, the less likely medical equi......
-
Issue Topics
...impose additional and significant work-related limitation of function may support an equivalence of determination.” Derrig v. Chater , 905 F. Supp. 584, 603 (N.D. Iowa 1995), citing POMS §DI24515.056D(1) (c). The court stated that, in general, the higher the IQ, the less likely medical equi......