Dominick v. Bowen, 88-4324
| Decision Date | 30 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-4324,88-4324 |
| Citation | 861 F.2d 1330 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 14463A Nena DOMINICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Laurel G. Weir, Thomas L. Booker, Philadelphia, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
L.A. Smith, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., George Phillips, U.S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Donna J. Fuchsluger, Atty., Baltimore, Md., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Nena Dominick appeals the district court's affirmance of the Secretary's denial of her social security benefits. Finding that the Secretary applied the correct legal standards and that there was substantial evidence to support his decision, we affirm.
Because decisions in this case have been rendered by an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), the Appeals Council, a United States magistrate, and the district court, all of which were in agreement, and which we now affirm, we need not dwell long on the specifics in this case, but will merely summarize the issues and our finding.
Nena Dominick has suffered from numerous illnesses and other medical problems over the years. In particular, she was diagnosed as having a carcinoid liver syndrome in 1969. She received social security benefits until October 1982, when her medical examinations indicated that, although she still had the disease, it no longer manifested symptoms, and she was capable of performing light work. On December 12, 1985, she filed another application for benefits, claiming disability as a result of the carcinoid syndrome, severe asthma, and a hiatal hernia. After a hearing, an ALJ found that she was not disabled and denied her benefits. The Secretary adopted the ALJ's decision and Dominick sought review before the district court, which remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir.1985). The Appeals Council remanded the case to an ALJ in February 1986 for proceedings consistent with the district court's order.
The ALJ rendered his opinion in September 1986, and found that the plaintiff retained residual functional capacity to perform a full range of light work and was not disabled. The Appeals Council modified the ALJ's decision, affirming his finding that Dominick was not disabled, and adding that Dominick's evidence of a mental impairment showed it was first diagnosed in 1986, and did not support a finding that she had suffered from such mental impairment before 1984. In order to receive benefits, Dominick had to prove that her disability existed prior to December 31, 1984, her last quarter of eligibility. The Appeals Council also corrected the ALJ's finding that Dominick suffered from an impairment of fatigue, noting that fatigue was a symptom rather than an impairment.
Dominick again appealed this decision to the district court, which, following the magistrate's recommendation supporting the Secretary's decision, affirmed. The magistrate found that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination that Dominick was not disabled during the period before December 31, 1984, and also found that the Secretary applied proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and also explained that Dominick had not been, as she claimed, entitled to another hearing before the ALJ, particularly since she had neither requested one nor responded to the ALJ's letter prior to his second decision, in which he asked Dominick's counsel to advise him if he had "any additional medical evidence or anticipate[d] any additional medical [or] any other evidence he [might] wish to submit." The district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flanigan v. Colvin
...consideration if such opinions are relevant to her condition prior to that date.” (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Dominick v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1330, 1333 (5th Cir.1988) (SSA properly disregarded evidence of post-insured status mental disorders); Tecza v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 08–242, 2009 W......
-
Flanigan v. Colvin
...consideration if such opinions are relevant to her condition prior to that date.” (emphasis added)); see also, e.g., Dominick v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1330, 1333 (5th Cir.1988) (SSA properly disregarded evidence of post-insured status mental disorders); Tecza v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 08–242, 2009 W......
-
Frazier v. Chater, 5:94-CV-254-C.
...F.2d 1296 (5th Cir.1987), Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir.1988), Wingo v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 827 (5th Cir.1988), and Dominick v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir.1988). If the Secretary makes a decision the Plaintiff can perform a full range of some level of work in the economy, then the Se......
-
Bolton v. Callahan, 6:96-CV-061-C.
...F.2d 1296 (5th Cir.1987), Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir.1988), Wingo v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 827 (5th Cir.1988), and Dominick v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir.1988). If the Commissioner makes a decision the Plaintiff can perform a full range of some level of work in the economy, then the......
-
Table of Cases
...Cir. Sept. 23, 2004), 5th-04 Dominguez v. Apfel , 55 F. Supp.2d 1172 (D. Kan. May 25, 1999), §§ 204.1, 204.4, 607.1 Dominick v. Bowen , 861 F.2d 1330, 1332 (5th Cir. 1988), §§ 107.3, 601.1 Donahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2001), §§ 104.7, 105.1, 105.4, 204.7, 313.1 Donahue......
-
Sequential evaluation process
...(5 th Cir. 1987); Mays v. Bowen , 837 F.2d 1362 (5 th Cir. 1988); Wingo v. Bowen , 852 F.2d 827 (5 th Cir. 1988); Dominick v. Bowen , 861 F.2d 1330 (5 th Cir. 1988). e. Sixth Circuit (1) A Tennessee district court noted that the Grids are “shortcuts which eliminate the need for calling voca......
-
Case survey
...1296 (5th Cir. 1987); Mays v. Bowen , 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1988); Wingo v. Bowen , 852 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1988); Dominick v. Bowen , 861 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1988). e. Sixth Circuit (1) A Tennessee district court noted that the Grids are “shortcuts which eliminate the need for calling voc......
-
Table of cases
...Cir. Sept. 23, 2004), 5th-04 Dominguez v. Apfel , 55 F. Supp.2d 1172 (D. Kan. May 25, 1999), §§ 204.1, 204.4, 607.1 Dominick v. Bowen , 861 F.2d 1330, 1332 (5th Cir. 1988), §§ 107.3, 601.1 Donahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2001), §§ 104.7, 105.1, 105.4, 204.7, 313.1 Donahue......