Doak v. Heckler, 85-3601

Decision Date28 April 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-3601,85-3601
Citation790 F.2d 26
Parties, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,780 Raymond G. DOAK, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Cynthia C. Berger, Berger and Reed, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Beverly Dennis, III, Reg. Atty., Charlotte Hardnett, Supervisory Asst. Reg. Atty., John E. Newton, Jr., Asst. Reg. Atty., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Philadelphia, Pa., J. Alan Johnson, U.S. Atty. Barbara M. Carlin, Asst. U.S. Atty., W.D. of Pa., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before SLOVITER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges and LONGOBARDI, District Judge *.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Raymond Doak is a 54 year old man with a ninth grade education who worked as a maintenance man until August 1982. He filed an application for disability insurance benefits on May 12, 1983, alleging that he had been unable to perform any substantial gainful activity since August 23, 1982 because of back problems, emphysema, chest pains, and feet trouble. The application was denied.

After a hearing de novo, the ALJ concluded that

the claimant's emphysema and arthritis would prevent the claimant from performing a job requiring heavy lifting. Since the claimant's last work as a maintenance man required him to lift an excess of 100 pounds, ... claimant does not have the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work.... ]However] the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work. Light work would entail standing and walking most of an 8 hour work day, with a lifting of a maximum of 20 pounds.

Tr. at 11. The ALJ added that "there is no evidence that the claimant could not perform a job requiring only the lifting of a maximum of 20 pounds", i.e., light work, and found that claimant's other complaints were not supported by objective medical evidence and were not credible. Id. Because the ALJ found the claimant capable of light work, application of the grid directed a conclusion of not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table 2 (1985).

The Appeals Council denied claimant's request for review. Claimant sought review in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.

On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ committed several reversible errors: finding that claimant is capable of performing light work; improperly discounting the opinion of the appellant's treating physician; not considering the combined effects of claimant's impairments and disregarding his subjective complaints of disabling pain; and improperly using the medical-vocational guidelines. We find the first issue dispositive.

The standard of review is whether the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). In prosecuting a disability claim, the claimant's initial burden is to demonstrate the existence of a medically determinable disability which precludes resumption of previous employment. Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210, 217 (3d Cir.1984); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir.1979); Rossi v. Califano, 602 F.2d 55, 57 (3d Cir.1979). Once the claimant has done so, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that, considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience, the claimant has the capacity to perform jobs that exist in the national economy. Id.

In the instant case, the ALJ concluded that the appellant has a severe impairment which is not disabling per se but does not have the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work. In determining whether appellant could nonetheless engage in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ made the critical finding that claimant was able to do light work. That finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The record consists of claimant's testimony, three medical reports made between June and December 1983, and a vocational expert's testimony. In addition to explaining his ailments, claimant testified that he runs a humidifier in his home, and uses a bronchodilator (for his breathing) and anti-anxiety medication. His average day is spent watching television in a sitting position, after which he often eats out with friends and drinks approximately eight beers. (Tr. 34-37).

Dr. Glenn Roberts, claimant's treating physician, described claimant's complaints and made the following observations in December 1983:

Xray suggests patient has an arthritic condition, with a spur formation in lumbar area, and contributes to his severe pain and limited motion in this area.

There is discoloration in patient's feet, which are cold to palpation.

Tr. at 97. He then diagnosed claimant as having

1. Advanced Arthritis of Spine, with spurring formation

2. Liver Disease, secondary to Alcoholism

3. Depressive Reaction, with Anxiety State

4. Artersclerotic Vascular Dx. (Renalds Dx) [sic]

5. Pulmonary Emphysema

6. Hypertension

Tr. at 98. Dr. Roberts then concluded:

It is my professional opinion that this patient is unable to fulfil [sic] any of the responsibilities for any type of gainful employment, and will remain totally disabled in the foreseeable future, due to his above conditions.

Tr. at 98. Dr. Roberts attached to this report the X-ray analysis by Dr. Yobbagy which apparently supports Dr. Roberts diagnosis of spinal problems. Tr. at 99.

Dr. S.P. Barua, an orthopedic surgeon who examined Doak for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Disability, concluded in September 1983 that:

This patient has emphysema, also has metatarsalgia secondary to cavus feet. His metatarsalgia is usually symptomatic during prolonged standing and also walking. Unfortunately, no corrective shoes or matatarsal bar has been added to see if he gets any relief from the foot pain.

It appears to me that he is more disabled from his chest condition than from his feet.

I certainly feel that he is capable of doing sedentary work.

Tr. at 92.

Finally, Dr. Subramonium Jayakumar, an Internist who examined Doak for the same agency in June 1983, incorporated a pulmonary function report, an X-ray consultation, and an electrocardiogram in his report. Dr. Jayakumar stated that:

1. Electrocardiogram done in my office showed occasional PVC's.

2. Pulmonary function study showed moderate severe obstructive defect with restrictive component, responsive to bronchodilator.

3. X-ray Pa and both lateral chest showed some demineralization of the thoracic spine.... Scattered fibrocalcific changes are seen bilaterally.... There is pleural scarring laterally on the right. There is prominence of the left hilus which may be simply vascular in nature. However, the hilus appears more prominent than has been seen on prior studies, and I cannot exclude developing neoplasm. Tomographic sections of the hilar areas would lend further information.

4. Thoracici spine, x-ray shows degenerative demineralization with osteophytes seen anteriorly involving the mid thoracic vertebral bodies. There is slight scoliosis with convexity to the left of the lower thoracic spine. There is no evidence of recent or prior fracture of the thoracic spine.

5. Stress test done showed that the patient was only able to exercise to a total of 4 METs of activity reaching a heart rate of 133 at which time he was extremely short of breath and was indeed noticed that the wheezing was much worse.

Tr. at 89. He concluded that claimant had emphysema but made no evaluation as to ability to work.

The vocational expert testified only about claimant's age, education, and past work experience. He concluded that claimant's past work gave him some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
627 cases
  • Paskosky v. Colvin, Civil Action No. 13-918
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 11, 2014
    ...that finding is not supported by substantial evidence with respect to the period of time covered by those assessments. Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1986). C. The Title II Claim A claimant must be insured for benefits in order to obtain an award under Title II. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a......
  • Gloria L. Ritz v. Colvin, CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00388-CCC-GBC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 9, 2016
    ...2016 WL 147269, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2016) (citing Frankenfield v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 405, 408 (3d Cir.1988); Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26, 29-30 (3d Cir.1986); Ferguson v. Schweiker, 765 F.2d 31, 37, 36-37 (3d Cir.1985); Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110, 115 (3d Cir.1983); Van Horn v. Schw......
  • Burns v. Colvin
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • December 30, 2015
    ...record with only lay reinterpretation of medical evidence. See Frankenfield v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 405, 408 (3d Cir. 1988); Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26, 29-30 (3d Cir. 1986); Ferguson v. Schweiker, 765 F.2d 31, 37, 36-37 (3d Cir. 1985); Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110, 115 (3d Cir. 1983); Van ......
  • Higgins v. Colvin, CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00594-YK-GBC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • September 21, 2016
    ...involve a treating source medical opinion before the ALJ. Cummings, 129 F. Supp. 3d at 216. The District Court in Cummings wrote that "[i]f Doak actually stood for the rule espoused by Plaintiff, the Court of Appeals in Chandler would have surely attempted to reconcile its reasoning with th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Case survey
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...in making a residual functional capacity determination. Id., citing Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999); Doak v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1986). The ALJ must also provide some indication of the evidence which is rejected and the reasons for discounting this evidenc......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990),§§ 204.2, 312.8 Dix v. Sullivan , 900 F.2d 135, 136 (8th Cir. 1990), § 305.1 Doak v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1986), §§ 105.7, 105.11 Doan v. Astrue , 04CV2309 DMS (RBB), 2010 WL 1031591, at *15 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2010), 8th-11 Dobbins v. Barn......
  • Sequential evaluation process
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Contents
    • August 2, 2014
    ...in making a residual functional capacity determination. Id., citing Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999); Doak v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1986). The ALJ must also provide some indication of the evidence which is rejected and the reasons for discounting this evidenc......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ..., 905 F.2d 237, 238 (8th Cir. 1990),§§ 204.2, 312.8 Dix v. Sullivan , 900 F.2d 135, 136 (8th Cir. 1990), § 305.1 Doak v. Heckler , 790 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1986), §§ 105.7, 105.11 Doan v. Astrue , 04CV2309 DMS (RBB), 2010 WL 1031591, at *15 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2010), 8th-11 Dobbins v. Barn......

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