Householder v. Bowen
| Decision Date | 12 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1414,88-1414 |
| Citation | 861 F.2d 191 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 14265A Linda HOUSEHOLDER, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Anthony W. Bartels, Jonesboro, Ark., for appellant.
Karen J. Sharp, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before HEANEY and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Linda Householder appeals from the order of the district court denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Secs. 216(i) and 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 416(i) and 423. We affirm the district court's finding that substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that Householder's impairments did not prevent her from performing past relevant work between 1978 and 1980.
Householder filed an application for disability insurance benefits alleging that she became unable to work in July, 1978, because of a heart problem, nerves, a back impairment and an ulcer. After a denial of benefits by the State Agency and the Social Security Administration, an administrative law judge held that Householder did not qualify for benefits between 1978 and 1980 because her subjective mental and medical complaints were not credible. Householder then filed a complaint in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). The district court remanded the case to the Secretary requesting more explicit findings as to the credibility of Householder's subjective symptoms.
On remand, the ALJ found that, between 1978 and 1980, Householder's impairments had not yet become severe, and alternatively, that she had the residual functional capacity for light work during that time and that she would have been able to perform her past relevant work. The district court found that substantial evidence existed to support both of the Secretary's findings. We affirm only on the basis of the alternative holding. 1
First, Householder left work as a seamstress in 1978 after being diagnosed as suffering from tachycardia. Evidence indicates that this impairment was successfully treated with medication. Second, although Householder suffered from an anxiety-related disorder, she successfully managed this ailment without the need to return to her doctor for a period of nineteen months. Finally, between 1978 and 1980, Householder was able to regularly attend church, go shopping and do light housework. There is no medical evidence indicating that Householder's anxiety condition caused her to withdraw from stressful situations or to be unable to tolerate a work-like setting during this time. The record thus supports the alternative holding that Householder's impairments did not preclude her from performing her past relevant work of routine, simple tasks in the garment and shoe industry during the two years in question.
1 We do not rest our decision on the finding that Householder's impairments were not "severe" within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). In Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987), the Supreme Court recently found this requirement to be constitutionally valid on its face. The severity requirement, however, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Callahan
...evaluation process should not end with the not severe evaluation step. Rather, it should be continued."' Householder v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 191, 192 n. 1 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Social Security Ruling 85-28). Third, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has an impairment which meets or eq......
-
Collins v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.
... ... so if the existing medical sources do not contain sufficient ... evidence to make an informed decision. See Matthews v ... Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir.1989) ... Thus, the proper inquiry for this Court is not whether a ... consultative examination should have ... claimant's ability to do his or her basic work ... activities. See Householder v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 191, ... 192 n.1 (8th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has also held that ... a claimant does not suffer from a severe ... ...
-
Posey v. Comm'r
...is more than slight and if the impairment affects the claimant's ability to do his basic work activities. See Householder v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 191, 192 n.1 (8th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has also held that a claimant does notsuffer from a severe impairment where the claimant only suffers ......
-
Harper v. Berryhill, Civil No. 2:18-cv-02117
...is more than slight and if the impairment affects the claimant's ability to do his basic work activities. See Householder v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 191, 192 n.1 (8th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has also held that a claimant does not suffer from a severe impairment where the claimant only suffers......