Hollis v. Bowen, 87-2522
| Decision Date | 07 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2522,87-2522 |
| Citation | 832 F.2d 865 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,681 William G. HOLLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William G. Hollis, pro se.
Samuel Longoria, Frank A. Conforti, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., John M. Gough, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, William G. Hollis, on December 15, 1983, applied for social security disability benefits, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423, alleging disability dating from March 1, 1983. Adverse decisions by the administrative law judge and the Appeals Council found him capable of sedentary work, and the decision of the Appeals Council became the final decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Appellant brought suit for judicial review, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). The magistrate and the district court found substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the Secretary. After a careful perusal of the record, we affirm.
Our review is based upon a substantial evidence standard. We are to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the entire record to support the decision of the Secretary. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1432, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Allen v. Schweiker, 642 F.2d 799, 800 (5th Cir.1981).
We summarize briefly the evidence contained in the record. Appellant from 1978 to 1982 had several surgical procedures related to serious problems with his back. These procedures were all completed before the time period which is advanced as the justification for the disability payments. During this earlier time he was awarded disability benefits beginning October 31, 1978, and continuing until 1983. There was no appeal when these benefits were terminated so they are not before the Court.
During the period covered by the current application and since the application, appellant's complaint basically is disabling pain plus some obvious limitation of physical motion in his back. Before his hearing, he was examined several times by several doctors who could find no justification for an amount of pain which was totally disabling. After an earlier denial of benefits, the Secretary asked for the case to be remanded from the district court for an inquiry into the possibility of mental illness of the patient. The full procedures of the administrative law judge and the Appeals Council and the decision by the Secretary were then carried out again. There was a finding of no mental illness justifying disability. The finding as to physical disability was that while he was disqualified from his prior work as a cement finisher in the construction industry, he retained the capacity to engage in sedentary work.
Appellant himself testified that he could lift at least 5 pounds, sit for 60 minutes, and stand for 90 minutes at a time. In December 1983, Dr. Fleming, his treating physician, offered as his residual functional assessment the conclusion that appellant could lift or carry up to 10 pounds, stand or walk less than 6 hours a day, sit less than 6 hours a day, and had a somewhat limited ability to perform push/pull maneuvers. He further concluded that appellant would have the capacity for unlimited fingering and feeling and limited reaching and handling. We do not detail other medical opinion rendered at that time because under a substantial evidence standard if the Secretary wishes to credit the conclusions of Dr. Fleming his testimony alone is enough to show residual capacity for sedentary employment.
Simply to avoid a claim of omission of relevant considerations, we also refer to the fact that appellant is missing a finger on one hand. This has been a long standing matter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deery v. R.I. Departmentof Human Servs.
...a day is generally not enough by itself to preclude the performance of sedentary work." 3 Soc. Sec. LP § 43:22 (citing Hollis v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1987)). The Grid is meant to reflect the potential occupational base remaining to a claimant in light of his or her strength limitat......
-
Boutin v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, C.A. No. PC/05-2043 (RI 4/13/2006), C.A. No. PC/05-2043
...for [sic] than six hours a day is generally not enough by itself to preclude the performance of sedentary work") (citing Hollis v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1987). In the case at hand, it was within the hearing officer's power to afford less weight to Dr. Katz's RFC assessment, based on......