Gilliam v. Califano, 79-1525

Citation620 F.2d 691
Decision Date15 May 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-1525,79-1525
PartiesAlfred P. GILLIAM, Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Secretary, Health, Education & Welfare of the United States or successor or successors in office, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Robert A. Crowe, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Anne Travis Shapleigh (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee; Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on brief.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, * and LAY and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Alfred P. Gilliam appeals from the judgment of the district court granting the motion of the Secretary of HEW for summary judgment on his petition for review of a final decision of the Secretary denying him disability insurance benefits. For the reasons discussed below, we find that there was not sufficient evidence to support the decisions of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and the district court. We reverse and remand.

Gilliam became self-employed in 1962. In February of 1977, a fire burned down his storm window business. In August of 1977, Gilliam's personal physician, Dr. Appleberry, hospitalized him for testing and determined that he was unable to work because of severe osteoarthritis of the spine and multiple joints, asthma, chronic bronchitis and diabetes mellitus. Gilliam had been trying to reestablish his business, but on advice from Dr. Appleberry he gave up the attempt. Gilliam has not worked since that time. Dr. Appleberry confirmed in writing his conclusion that Gilliam was disabled, in April of 1978.

Dr. Huckstep examined Gilliam at the request of the Missouri Vocational Rehabilitation Agency. In a report of October 13, 1977, Dr. Huckstep found some indications of arthritis and the other conditions, but noted that Gilliam's reactions to pain may have been exaggerated. Dr. Huckstep did not take any X-rays of Gilliam's joints or back.

On February 20, 1978, Dr. Conrad, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Gilliam at the request of the state. Dr. Conrad did an extensive examination, including X-rays of the joints and back. Dr. Conrad detailed problems of limited motion, arthritic spurring and narrowing of the disc spaces; but, like Dr. Huckstep, he thought that Gilliam's complaints were out of proportion to his condition.

The final piece of medical evidence was a check list dated October 2, 1977, captioned "residual functional capacity physical." It indicated that Gilliam suffered very few physical restrictions. The signature was illegible. This form is typically filled out by a medical examiner, however, who never examines the claimant but merely reviews the written data available at the time.

Gilliam applied for disability benefits on September 8, 1977. His application was denied by the Social Security Administration initially on November 6, 1977, and affirmed in a reconsideration determination dated March 10, 1978. Appellant requested a hearing, which was held on May 10, 1978. Gilliam, his attorney and the vocational expert were present. All the written medical reports were made available to the ALJ.

At the time of the hearing, Gilliam was fifty-five years old and had a seventh grade education. His other work experience, after his discharge from the military in 1945, had been as a carpenter and a drilling operator in underground mining. He testified in detail about his physical condition and his inability to perform simple daily activities, such as: writing, opening jars or bottles, getting in and out of the bathtub, tying his shoes, putting on his shirt, and turning on and off a light switch. In general, he stated that he was unable to sit or stand for over one-half hour, could not walk 150 feet without stopping to rest, found it difficult to bend down, and had to lie down four or five hours a day because of the pain.

At the request of the ALJ, the vocational expert defined the terms "light work" and "sedentary work" as used in the Dictionary of Occupational Title published by the Department of Labor. The ALJ then asked the following question:

Under the assumption, should the medical evidence disclose that there's no physical or mental impairment to Mr. Gilliam doing . . . (inaudible reference to light and sedentary jobs). Bearing in mind the definitions that you've just given, for those jobs, do you know of any jobs which exist in significant numbers in the region in which he resides, that you feel this claimant is able to perform, based on his age, education, and his training, background.

In response to this question, the vocational expert cited a number of simple assembly jobs, leather boot and shoe industry jobs and machine tending jobs.

Gilliam's counsel then asked the vocational expert to assume that Gilliam has a degree of impairment of his upper extremities such that he cannot put on a shirt without assistance, that Gilliam has such limitations of motion that he cannot tie his own shoes, that Gilliam's hands are so stiff and sore that he often cannot operate a common light switch, that Gilliam cannot walk a distance greater than 150 feet without resting several minutes, and that Gilliam is required to spend four or five hours a day lying down because of pain. The vocational expert stated that Gilliam could not work with those limitations.

The ALJ decided that Gilliam had been properly denied disability benefits. The Appeals Council...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Davis v. Callahan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • September 18, 1997
    ...Nunn v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 645, 649 (8th Cir.1984); Jackson v. Schweiker, 696 F.2d 630, 631 n. 1 (8th Cir.1983); Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir.1980). The Secretary has the burden of establishing a claimant's residual functional capacity by substantial evidence. McDonald v. ......
  • Henson v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • April 29, 2005
    ...Experts are utilized by the ALJ to "assess whether jobs exist for a person with the claimant's precise abilities." Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 694 n. 1 (8th Cir.1980). The VE's testimony must: (1) assess the effect of any limitation on the range of work at issue; (2) advise whether t......
  • Nehlig v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 10, 1999
    ...Experts are utilized by the ALJ to "assess whether jobs exist for a person with the claimant's precise abilities." Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691 (8th Cir.1980). The VE's testimony must: (1) assess the effect of any limitation on the range of work at issue; (2) advise whether the impaire......
  • McCoy v. Schweiker, s. 81-1629
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 21, 1982
    ...It is for those reasons that this Court has held that as a general rule little weight is afforded to RFC checklists, Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980), to reports of non-examining physicians, and reports of consulting physicians who examine the claimant only on one occa......
  • 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
    ...to little weight in the evaluation of a disability.” Taylor v. Chater , 118 F.3d 1274, 1279 (8th Cir. 1997), citing Gilliam v. Califano , 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980). § 105.7 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED (2) An ALJ may properly discount portions of an RFC form that was prepared by......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...1071 (D.N.D. Nov. 4, 2003), §§ 1203.6, 1311.2 Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart , 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004), 9th-09 Gilliam v. Califano , 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980), § 105.6 Gilliland v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1986), §§ 312.16, 607.1, 607.6 Girard v. Chater , 918 F. Supp. 42, 44......
  • Sequential evaluation process
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Contents
    • August 2, 2014
    ...to little weight in the evaluation of a disability.” Taylor v. Chater , 118 F.3d 1274, 1279 (8 th Cir. 1997), citing Gilliam v. Califano , 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8 th Cir. 1980). b. An ALJ may properly discount portions of an RFC form that was prepared by a claimant’s attorney and took into acc......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...1071 (D.N.D. Nov. 4, 2003), §§ 1203.6, 1311.2 Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart , 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004), 9th-09 Gilliam v. Califano , 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980), § 105.6 Gilliland v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1986), §§ 312.16, 607.1, 607.6 Girard v. Chater , 918 F. Supp. 42, 44......

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