Evans v. Heckler
| Decision Date | 21 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2025,83-2025 |
| Citation | 734 F.2d 1012 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15,329 Martin W. EVANS, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Charles T. Hall, Raleigh, N.C. for appellant.
Dennis I. Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C. (Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Samuel T. Currin, U.S. Atty., Raleigh, N.C., Joseph S. Friedman, Social Security Division, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Martin W. Evans appeals from the order of the district court affirming the Secretary's denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 416(i), 423. The district court found that substantial evidence supported the decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Evans was not severely impaired and, therefore, was not under a disability as defined by the Act. We disagree and conclude that the district court erred in finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case with direction to enter judgment in favor of Evans.
Evans was fifty-five years old at the time of the Secretary's decision in August, 1981. He has a fifth-grade education. In the past, he has worked as an electrical foreman and an electrical supervisor for various employers.
Evans alleged disability because of extrinsic asthma with bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hearing loss, headaches, nervousness, and a visual problem. At the administrative hearing, Evans testified that he had experienced trouble with his lungs for thirty-four years, and was forced to retire early because of shortness of breath. Evans stated that he is unable to stand for sustained periods because of the weakness caused by his lung condition, and that he is forced to spend his afternoons lying down. He also stated that he is unable to lie flat on a bed and sleep without feeling smothered. In response to questions concerning his work, Evans said that he loved his work and that since he has been unable to do it, his nerves have bothered him and he has been very depressed. He stated that he often thought about suicide.
The uncontradicted medical evidence documented that Evans suffered from a serious lung condition. The medical records show that since January, 1980, Evans has been under treatment at the North Carolina Memorial Hospital (NCMH) and the Veterans Administration Hospital (VAH), at Durham. Evans was admitted to NCMH on five occasions during 1980, due to marked inspiratory and expiratory wheezing, acute asthmatic attacks, and an obstructive pulmonary disease. A pulmonary function study performed in March, 1980, showed him to have a forced vital capacity (FVC) of sixty-eight percent of the predicted value for a person of his height and a forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1 ) of sixty-five percent of the predicted value. 1 Blood gas studies performed at the same time showed hypoxemia and alkalosis. 2 Dr. Thomas M. Bulle, Evans' examining physician at NCMH, diagnosed Evans as having a moderately severe chronic obstructive lung disease with a significant bronchospastic component and concluded that Evans was "essentially disabled 100%."
Evans was admitted to the VAH on twelve occasions during 1981 and 1982 for a prolonged and severe lung infection. On February 22, 1982, he was sent to the Veterans Administrative Regional Office, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for an examination to determine whether he would be eligible for a non-service connected disability pension. A pulmonary function test completed at that time showed a FVC of forty-eight percent of the predicted value for a person of his height and a FEV1 of twenty-two percent of the predicted value. Dr. Donald C. Hartzog, the examining physician, stated that Evans suffered extrinsic asthma with chronic bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As a result of this examination Evans' claim for a Veterans Administration disability pension was approved. Such a pension can be granted only to a veteran who is permanently and totally disabled under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 521(a) (1983).
The Secretary had Evans undergo another pulmonary function test in September, 1982. The result of that test indicated a FVC of fifty-nine percent of the predicted value and a FEV1 of sixty-one percent of the predicted value.
The ALJ found that Evans had extrinsic asthma with bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema, but that these impairments were "not prohibitive of basic work activities." Consequently, the ALJ concluded that Evans did not have a severe impairment and was not entitled to disability benefits. The district court subsequently found that this determination was supported by substantial evidence. From this decision, Evans appeals.
On appeal, Evans contends that the district court erred in finding that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding that Evans did not have a severe impairment. We agree.
" '[A]n impairment can be considered as "not severe" only if it is a slight abnormality which has such a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience.' " Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Appeals Council Review of Sequential Evaluation Under Expanded Vocational Regulations (1980) (emphasis added). The Secretary found, and both the ALJ and the district judge agreed, that Evans'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diane S. P. v. Berryhill, Action No. 4:17cv143
...a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work." Evans v. Heckler , 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (4th Cir. 1984). At step two, the ALJ classified plaintiff's "neck disorder" as a severe impairment. R. 19. The ALJ also classified pl......
-
McPherson v. Astrue
...a minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work." Evans v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1012, 1015 (4th Cir.1984) (emphasis 1. Low Back Pain, Radiculopathy of the Legs, and Foot Pain The ALJ did not find that Plaintiff's claimed low b......
-
Bowen v. Yuckert, 85-1409
...significantly limit any "basic work activity" can be denied benefits without undertaking this vocational analysis. See Evans v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (CA4 1984); Estran v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 340, 341 (CA5 1984) (per curiam ); Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 920 (CA11 1984). As the Sec......
-
Watson v. Bowen
...was accorded such opinions which could be disregarded only if there existed persuasive contradictory evidence. See, e.g. Evans v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1012 (7th Cir.1984). Even so, the mere fact that a physician happened to be a treating physician did not, in and of itself, entitle the evidenc......
-
Case survey
...to interfere with the individual’s ability to work.” Cottrill v. Apfel , 102 F. Supp.2d 627, 634 (D. Md. 2000), citing Evans v. Heckler , 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (4th Cir. 1984). In cases where the adjudicator is unable to determine clearly the effect of an impairment or the combination of impa......
-
Issue Topics
...or work experience.” Albright v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. , 174 F.3d 473, 478 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1999), citing Evans v. Heckler , 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (4th Cir. 1984). The Fourth Circuit law provides that “an impairment can be considered as ‘not severe’ only if it is a slight abnormali......
-
Issue topics
...or work experience.” Albright v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. , 174 F.3d 473, 478 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1999), citing Evans v. Heckler , 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (4th Cir. 1984). The Fourth Circuit law provides that “an impairment can be considered as ‘not severe’ only if it is a slight abnormali......
-
Issue topics
...or work experience.” Albright v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin. , 174 F.3d 473, 478 n. 1 (4 th Cir. 1999), citing Evans v. Heckler , 734 F.2d 1012, 1014 (4 th Cir. 1984). The Fourth Circuit law provides that “an impairment can be considered as ‘not severe’ only if it is a slight abnorma......