Garrett v. Finch, 20038.

Citation436 F.2d 15
Decision Date22 December 1970
Docket NumberNo. 20038.,20038.
PartiesHarley O. GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert H. FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Thomas A. Luken, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Byron E. Trapp, Cincinnati, Ohio, William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., Norbert A. Nadel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief, for appellee.

Before WEICK and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Harley O. Garrett, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, which affirmed the Decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, denying appellant's claim for social security benefits. The Secretary's decision affirmed a decision of one of its hearing examiners, made after a hearing at which appellant was represented by counsel.

We reverse because we consider that the hearing examiner's Decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Application for benefits was filed March 23, 1967. Judgment affirming denial was entered September 24, 1969. Garrett's record of health difficulties began in 1945 when he was discharged from the army with a diagnosis of hypochondriasis; since then he has been receiving $60 per month on the basis of a service-connected disability. For a while this allowance was reduced to a 10% disability allowance, but the original 30% allowance had been restored at the time of the decision which we consider. He described the service-connected disability as nervousness.

Harley Garrett, now 62 years of age, has an eighth grade education. After World War II he took a training course through the GI Bill of Rights and was trained on the job as a machine repairman. He has periodically worked in such capacity and as a machine operator and as a maintenance man. Over the past 35 years, appellant has also worked periodically as a self-employed painter and interior decorator.

Appellant first injured his back in 1955 when, while working for Ford Motor Company as a machine repairman, the ladder on which he was standing collapsed, causing him to fall on his back on top of the ladder. He suffered fractured ribs and vertebrae and a laceration of his right leg. He was hospitalized for more than a month with both leg and back casts. Following this, and as a result of such injuries, he was off from work for two years. The second back injury occurred in 1960 while working for Buck Equipment Company, building elevating equipment or hoists. In the process of helping a fellow employee unload "I" beams from a tractor trailer, the other man, coming out of the truck, dropped his end of the beam and much of the weight shifted onto appellant. Garrett suffered a severe back strain and contusions. Since that time appellant has complained of increasing pain and his condition gradually worsened until he finally became unable to work on August 12, 1966.

Prior to the date when, as he claims, he became totally disabled, Garrett was employed painting the exterior of a house. This had been his occupation for a substantial part of his working years. During the four years immediately preceding the date of the claimed onset of total disability, appellant was for a short period a hospital maintenance man and for periods of six months and two years, respectively, he was employed as the manager of an apartment building. He testified that included in his duties as apartment manager were such tasks as repair of the heating unit and maintenance of the electrical and plumbing installations, as well as cleaning, particularly after an occupant had vacated an apartment. His testimony that such work required lifting, carrying, stooping and bending, was in no way challenged. Immediately prior to the examiner's hearing, Garrett had been receiving from the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Bureau payments for temporary total disability because of his back condition. Also at the time of the social security hearing, his claim for permanent total disability was pending before the Ohio Bureau.

In addition to Garrett's own testimony descriptive of his injuries and disabilities, seven medical reports are included in the record. None of these, including those made by doctors who examined Garrett for the Secretary, assert that he would be able to resume house painting or the duties involved, as set out above, in his work as manager and maintenance man of an apartment building. None of the reports belittle his claim of nervous involvement, combining with whatever were the physical consequences of his industrial traumatic experiences. The doctors who considered his claim of disability agreed that he suffered from a psychoneurotic disorder. One detailed an anxiety reaction; the other a depressive reaction. Both felt he needed psychiatric therapy. The earlier examiner felt his functional capacity was only moderately impaired, the other more recent examiner was much more guarded, stating that the outlook...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Shirley v. Colvin, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-00038-JHM
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • 25 Octubre 2013
    ...v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir. 1980) (citing Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir. 1978); Garrett v. Finch, 436 F.2d 15, 18 (6th Cir. 1970)). The Commissioner may meet this burden by relying on expert vocational testimony received during the hearing to determine what job......
  • Meyers v. Heckler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 12 Noviembre 1985
    ...that there is work in the national economy which she can perform. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.1978); Garrett v. Finch, 436 F.2d 15, 18 (6th Cir.1970). 2. Convincing proof, consisting of lay testimony supported by clinical studies and medical evidence, that pain occasions ......
  • Avery v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • 6 Mayo 2014
    ...v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir. 1980) (citing Hephner v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir. 1978); Garrett v. Finch, 436 F.2d 15, 18 (6th Cir. 1970)). The Commissioner may meet this burden by relying on expert vocational testimony received during the hearing to determine what jo......
  • Shavers v. Secretary of Health, Ed. & Welfare
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 13 Octubre 1977
    ...to the Secretary to justify a finding that there exists some other gainful employment in which she is capable of engaging; Garrett v. Finch, 436 F.2d 15 (6th Cir.1970); Goad v. Finch, 426 F.2d 1388 (6th The purpose behind this rule, viewed in the context of the requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 40......
  • 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