Hawkins v. Heckler, 83-1845.
Citation | 600 F. Supp. 832 |
Decision Date | 22 January 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 83-1845.,83-1845. |
Parties | Bobby J. HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David H.M. Gray, Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff.
Stephen K. Lester, Asst. U.S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., for defendant.
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services terminating Plaintiff's entitlement to disability benefits under the Social Security Act. This matter originally came before this Court on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and alternative motion for remand, and the Secretary's motion to affirm the Secretary's decision. In a ruling filed September 24, 1984 this Court denied both motions for summary judgment and remanded the case to the Secretary with instructions to effectuate reconsideration by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The Appeals Council submitted a Clarifying Order of Appeals Council dated October 19, 1984 in which it again reaffirmed the termination of Plaintiff's period of disability but failed to obtain reconsideration by the ALJ. This matter is now before the Court again on Plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment.
(R. 136) At that time he had difficulty comprehending what was expected of him, and he did not accept the recommendation to attend Midtown Halfway House. (R. 136)
Following the onset of Plaintiff's sobriety, the following psychological evaluation was made on January 29, 1980:
(R. 138)
To fully explore the possibility of chronic brain syndrome, a neuropsychological evaluation was performed January 1, 1983 by Leslie Ruthven, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. He found Plaintiff to be functioning in the low average range of intelligence, but his intellectual efficiency was undermined by impulsive or disinhibited reactivity. He was found to act without adequate reflection. His thinking was rigid, and he tended to persist in a fruitless direction even though events would indicate a different course of action. Diagnosed as having minimal brain dysfunction, he was observed to be impaired by disinhibition, which may have led to his previous alcoholism. The psychologist concluded that Plaintiff had some potential for returning to competitive employment with the assistance of therapy. (R. 169-170) Examples of Plaintiff's inappropriate and unrealistic thought processes are found at R. 48-49, where he indicated he could do alcoholic counseling, drafting, and engineering.
Plaintiff heeded this psychologist's recommendation in anticipation that he would be able to work again. His therapy, however, disclosed additional and much more serious problems. An April 20, 1983 report from his psychologist disclosed:
After my initial evaluation of the above individual (see Report dated 1/27/83) I began seeing him in weekly psychotherapy sessions, which I anticipate continuing for a year or so. In my contacts with him I have found that there is much more serious psychopathology — and disability — then I was aware of from my first evaluation, which was directed toward the issue of brain damage because of a previous diagnosis of Organic Brain Syndrome. My current diagnosis is that of a chronic paranoid schizophrenic reaction in a recovering alcoholic with minimal brain dysfunction. Clinically and on psychological tests I have found him to have substantial delusional ideas and I feel that these paranoid beliefs play a dominant role in his social isolation and estrangement from people, including family members. Heretofore I thought he might be able to handle the demands of employment within the next six months but I am not expecting him to be able to handle gainful employment for at least a year or more, but I am fairly hopeful about the long term prognosis for this individual. In addition to the therapy, I am also encouraging him to pursue vocational evaluation and training with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation.
(R. 176) It is this report which was submitted to the Appeals Council after the hearing and which occasioned the previous remand of this case to the Secretary.
Specific examples of Plaintiff's isolation and other symptoms can also be found in his testimony. He lives in a storage van on a business street. His only amenities are a couch, an old TV and a hot plate. He has no restroom and no running water. (R. 44) He has only one friend around whom his few activities revolve. (R. 45) His only other social contact is his sister. (R. 53) He inarticulately expressed a problem relating to people. (R. 45-46) He has depression "day and night." (R. 46)
This court has previously described the scope of review in Green v. Schweiker, 582 F.Supp. 786 (1984) at 789-790:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Umbenhower v. Berryhill
...abstracting pieces of the evidence favorable to his position. (Pl. Br. 23) (citing, without pinpoint citation, Hawkins v. Heckler, 600 F. Supp. 832 (D. Kan. 1985), Claassen v. Heckler, 600 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Kan. 1985), and Green v. Schweiker, 582 F. Supp. 786 (D. Kan. 1984)). Plaintiff next......
-
Hawkins v. Heckler, 83-1845.
...1984 in which it again reaffirmed the termination of Plaintiff's period of disability but failed to obtain reconsideration by the ALJ. 600 F.Supp. 832. The authorities are in accord that EAJA applies to Social Security cases. This district has recently found that the EAJA does apply to Soci......
-
Anderson v. Astrue
...§ 416(i); § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (defining "disability" under the Social Security Act). 148.Decker v. Chater, 86 F.3d 953, 954 (10th Cir. 1996). 149.Hawkins v. Heckler, 600 F. Supp. 832, 837 (D. Kan. 1985); Nelson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1163 (D. Kan. 2003). 150.Recor......
-
Sand v. Shalala
...medical disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B); Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1491 (10th Cir.1991); see also Hawkins v. Heckler, 600 F.Supp. 832, 837 (D.Kan.1985) (the Secretary is required to consider the claimant's impairments in combination). On remand, the ALJ shall consider the plai......