Haynes v. Heckler
Decision Date | 17 August 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1895,82-1895 |
Parties | Rochelle S. HAYNES, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Wilson, Grider & Castleman, Pocahontas, Ark., for appellant.
J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., George W. Proctor, U.S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., Frank V. Smith, III, Regional Atty., Mary K. Biester, Asst. Regional Atty., U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and REGAN, * Senior District Judge.
This appeal followed entry of summary judgment against Rochelle S. Haynes in an action brought by her pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) for review of a decision of the Secretary denying her claim for Social Security disability benefits. On appeal Haynes contends that the Secretary's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that in determining her disability status the Secretary improperly applied the medical-vocational guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 (1982). We reverse and remand for further consideration by the Secretary because the administrative law judge relied on the medical-vocational guidelines to direct a conclusion of not disabled in a case involving nonexertional impairments.
The administrative law judge found that Haynes was afflicted by several health impairments prior to September 30, 1964, the end of her eligibility period. He found the medical evidence established that, as of the date she alleged disability, Haynes had diverticulosis with probable diverticulitis, mild high blood pressure and spastic colitis or irritable colon syndrome. He noted that gastrointestinal blood loss resulting from diverticulosis/diverticulitis had necessitated a transfusion. He further found that Haynes once had continuous uncontrolled diarrhea for a period of six months and that she suffered recurrent episodes of diarrhea which were only partially controlled by the use of medication. The administrative law judge followed the sequence of determinations established by the regulations, see 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520 (1982), and concluded that Haynes could not perform her past relevant work. He went on to find that she had the residual functional capacity for sedentary work, consulted the corresponding table in Appendix 2, and determined that her characteristics fit the criteria of Rule 201.21 in Table 1 of Appendix 2, which dictated a finding of not disabled.
Once it was established that Haynes could not perform her past relevant work, the burden shifted to the Secretary to prove with substantial evidence that she retained the ability to engage in other work available in the national economy. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1146-47 (8th Cir.1982). To meet this burden the Secretary must first establish that the claimant has the ability to engage in other kinds of work. O'Leary v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 1334 at 1338 (8th Cir.1983). This step involves establishing the individual's residual functional capacity, that is, what the claimant can still do despite his or her limitations. See id.; 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1545 (1982). However, it must be kept in mind that for purposes of applying the medical-vocational guidelines residual functional capacity is defined wholly in terms of a claimant's physical ability to perform exertional tasks and does not take into account nonexertional impairments. See McCoy v. Schweiker, supra, 683 F.2d at 1148. Once the claimant's capabilities are established, the Secretary must also show that there are jobs available in the national economy that the claimant can perform. O'Leary v. Schweiker, supra, 710 F.2d at 1338. This determination requires consideration of the claimant's exertional and nonexertional impairments, age, education and previous work experience. See id.; 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1561 (1982).
It is now established that the medical-vocational guidelines may be used in appropriate cases to determine whether jobs which the claimant can perform are available in the national economy, and consequently to determine whether the claimant is disabled. Heckler v. Campbell, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 1957-58, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983); McCoy v. Schweiker, supra, 683 F.2d at 1145-46. In upholding the validity of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheely v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Social Services
...(7th Cir.1984); Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601, 605 (2nd Cir.1986); Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189, 192 (4th Cir.1983); Haynes v. Heckler, 716 F.2d 483 (8th Cir.1983); Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1985); Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1105 (10th Cir.1985). DHSS cites no cas......
-
Grow v. Astrue
...economy and, consequently, whether the claimant is disabled. Tucker v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 793,795 (8th Cir.1985); Haynes v. Heckler, 716 F.2d 483, 485 (8th Cir.1983); Lewis v. Heckler 808 F.2d 1293, 1297 (C.A.8 (Iowa),1987) However, "where the claimant suffers from a nonexertional impairment......
-
Gavin v. Heckler
...to prove that jobs are available in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Parsons, 739 F.2d at 1339-40; Haynes v. Heckler, 716 F.2d 483, 485 (8th Cir.1983).4 The magistrate also found that the claimant did not fall within the standard relating to alcohol addiction set forth in......
-
Channel v. Heckler, 83-2322
...1597-98 (9th Cir.1984) (ALJ's reliance on grids was error where claimant could not tolerate dust, fumes, or heat); Haynes v. Heckler, 716 F.2d 483, 485 (8th Cir.1983) (ALJ's reliance on grids was error where claimant's limitations, colon discomfort and recurrent diarrhea, were nonexertional......
-
Specific impairments issues
...th Cir. 1990); Gibson v. Heckler , 779 F.2d 619 (11 th Cir. 1986); Rambo v. Heckler , 728 F.2d 1583 (11 th Cir. 1984); Haynes v. Heckler , 716 F.2d 483 (8 th Cir. 1983). The court also held that while the record disclosed that the ALJ did not expressly consider the severity of the claim-ant......
-
Table of cases
...Welfare , 656 F.2d 204 (6th Cir. 1981), § 1107.11 Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. July 26, 2005), 7th-05 Haynes v. Heckler , 716 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1983), § 308.1 Haywood v. Sullivan , 888 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1989), §§ 107.1, 504.6, 1104.5 Hazel v. Chater , 112 F.3d 509 (Table), ......
-
Table of Cases
...Welfare , 656 F.2d 204 (6th Cir. 1981), § 1107.11 Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. July 26, 2005), 7th-05 Haynes v. Heckler , 716 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1983), § 308.1 Haywood v. Sullivan , 888 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1989), §§ 107.1, 504.6, 1104.5 Hazel v. Chater , 112 F.3d 509 (Table), ......