Dorton v. Heckler

Decision Date24 January 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-1502,85-1502
Citation789 F.2d 363
Parties, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,764 Daisy DORTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant- Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Martin Hirschman, Hurwitz, Karp, Hirschman & Wallach, Dearborn Heights, Mich., plaintiff-appellant.

Ross I. MacKenzie, U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, WELLFORD, Circuit Judge, and PORTER, * Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On May 23, 1983 Daisy Dorton filed an application for widow's disability benefits alleging that she became disabled on January 1, 1981 at age 51. 1 Dorton claimed she was disabled as a result of multiple and cumulative circulatory, respiratory and nervous system ailments. In particular, Dorton claimed to have angina which meets the Social Security listing of impairments at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Sec. 4.04(A)(2). Dorton's application was denied initially on July 14, 1983, and upon reconsideration on August 11, 1983. Dorton then requested a de novo hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

On January 16, 1984, a hearing was held before ALJ Arthur Yim who issued a decision denying benefits on February 3, 1984. The ALJ found that Dorton established the existence of angina, premature ventricular contractions, and bronchitis. Nevertheless, he concluded that the medical evidence of record did not establish that the claimant's impairment was evidenced by specific clinical findings that were the same as those for any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The Appeals Council declined review on April 27, 1984, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

On review of the final decision of the Secretary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g), United States Magistrate Lynn V. Hooe, Jr. of the Eastern District of Michigan found there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision, and recommended that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff's claim dismissed. Claimant filed objections to the Magistrate's recommendation on March 4, 1985. These objections were considered by U.S. District Judge Robert E. DeMascio along with the administrative record and Magistrate's report. On May 29, Judge DeMascio accepted the Magistrate's report and rendered judgment for the defendant. Dorton appealed, claiming that there was not substantial evidence to support the finding that she was not disabled because the medical evidence she introduced was uncontradicted.

Section 402(e) of the Social Security Act provides disability benefits to a widow if (1) she is the widow of a wage earner who died fully insured, (2) she is between the ages of fifty and sixty, (3) she is disabled, and (4) her disability is expected to result in death or to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. It is uncontroverted that Dorton is the widow of a wage earner who died fully insured and that she is between the ages of fifty and sixty. Therefore the sole issue is whether she is disabled. It is well established that a widow must satisfy a stricter standard of disability than a wage earner. Wokojance v. Weinberger, 513 F.2d 210, 212 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 856, 96 S.Ct. 106, 46 L.Ed.2d 82 (1975). See also Price v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 281 (6th Cir.1985); Reynolds v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 707 F.2d 927 (6th Cir.1983). A widow is not considered to be disabled unless "her physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a level of severity which under regulations prescribed by the Secretary is deemed to be sufficient to preclude an individual from engaging in any gainful activity." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(2)(B). Moreover, in determining disability of a widow we may not consider her education and work experience. Rather, the widow's inability to work must be based solely upon medical considerations. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1577 (1985).

Section 423(d)(2)(B) authorizes the Secretary to set standards of severity for alleged disabilities which will be deemed to preclude an individual from engaging in any gainful activity. Those regulations are contained in Appendix 1 to 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P. A widow must show her impairments through specific clinical findings. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1578(a)(1). An individual cannot qualify for widow's disability benefits unless specific clinical findings show that she suffers from one of these impairments or that she suffers from one or more unlisted impairments that singly or in combination are the medical equivalent of a listed impairment. Id.; Price v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 281 (6th Cir.1985).

In this case, claimant contends that she meets the impairment listed at section 4.04(D) of Appendix 1. Section 4.04 concerns ischemic heart disease with chest pain of cardiac origin. It must be documented by a treadmill exercise test demonstrating "[p]remature ventricular systoles which are multiform or bidirectional or are sequentially inscribed (3 or more)" at an exercise level of 5 METS or less. Sec. 4.04(F)(2).

Dorton submitted the results of a treadmill exercise report dated February 4, 1983 which was conducted by the Disability Determination Service of the State of Michigan. The test was discontinued because of "premature ventricular systoles which are multiform or bidirectional ventricular tachycardin (three or more sequentially inscribed PVCs)." There was also a handwritten comment at the bottom of the report stating that, "Multiple P.V.C.s were noted." Although this apparently meets the requirements as set out above, upon close inspection of the test results it is evident that the premature ventricular systoles did not occur at the exercise level of 5 METS as required, but rather at 6 METS. Another treadmill test was conducted in March 1984. Although the report indicated there was "more marked ST segment depression and significant ST segment straightening suggestive of ischemia" at the time of chest pain, "no definite ischemic ST segment changes were seen" during the treadmill test. Thus, although Dorton does indeed present substantial evidence that she has ischemic heart disease with chest pain of cardiac origin, the ALJ was correct that Dorton did not demonstrate with specific clinical findings that she met the requirements of section 4.04(D) or any other section of Appendix 1.

A widow will also be considered disabled if she suffers from one or more unlisted impairments that singly or in combination are the medical equivalent of a listed impairment. An impairment or combination of impairments will be deemed medically equivalent to a listed impairment if the symptoms, signs and laboratory findings as shown in medical evidence are at least equal in severity and duration to the listed impairments most like the claimed impairment. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1526. Such a decision must be based solely on medical evidence supported by acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1526(b) (1985). The ALJ found that when Dorton's medical evidence was viewed as a whole, her impairments "even in combination" were not medically equivalent to any impairments listed in Appendix 1. If this determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be considered conclusive. See, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
155 cases
  • Winfree v. Nancy A. Berryhill Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • January 30, 2018
    ...at *11 (S.D. Ohio July 26, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4398669 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2016) (citing Dorton v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 363, 367 (6th Cir. 1989)). The Court therefore finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff does not meet the......
  • Walhood v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • February 16, 1995
    ...must be precluded from engaging in substantial gainful employment. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (1976) (emphasis added). See Dorton v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 363 (6th Cir. 1986). "In 1990, Congress amended the SSA to provide that as of January 1, 1991, the definition of disability for the purpose of......
  • Stanley v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • April 29, 2015
    ...meetingthe requirements of a listed impairment." Elam ex rel Golay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 348 F.3d 124, 125 (citing Dorton v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 363, 367 (6th Cir. 1986)). Listing 12.02 is the listing for Organic Mental Disorders, defined as "[p]sychological or behavioral abnormalities asso......
  • Hartel v. Nancy A. Berryhill Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • September 27, 2017
    ...(S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2016) ("It is not sufficient to come close to meeting the conditions of a Listing.") (citing Dorton v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 363, 367 (6th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff attempts to establish that he meets all of the relevant criteria by pointing to office visits on November 7, 2008......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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