Layton v. Heckler
| Decision Date | 07 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1368,83-1368 |
| Citation | 726 F.2d 440 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15,130 Evelyn LAYTON, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, * Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Bruce K. Kirby, Jones, Keeter, Karchmer, Nelms, Sullivan & Kirby, Springfield, Mo., for appellant.
Robert G. Ulrich, U.S. Atty., Judith M. Strong, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, ARNOLD, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Evelyn Layton argues that the District Court erred in upholding the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. She claims disability for a period beginning August 7, 1980, because of back pain, depression, and problems with bowel control. Born in 1931, Layton has worked as a nursing-home helper and as a beautician. Her last job was as a nursing assistant for St. John's Hospital, where she worked for two years from September 1, 1978, to August 7, 1980.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Layton was ineligible for benefits because she did not suffer from a severe impairment expected to last 12 months, as required under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(a). This finding was affirmed by the Appeals Council and subsequently by the District Court.
On appeal Layton raises several issues. After examining the record, we find that two of these objections have merit. Specifically, we find that the Secretary erred in strictly requiring Layton to show that her pain was caused by an objectively evidenced medical condition and in failing to consider the combined effect of Layton's impairments. Accordingly, we remand to the Secretary for further consideration in light of this opinion.
Layton objects to the ALJ's finding that her back pain did not constitute a severe impairment. She testified that she is unable to work because of severe back pain which radiates down her legs, and that she quit her job as a nurse's aide for this reason. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the pain was not a severe impairment, relying in part on 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1529 and 416.929. The former regulation states:
We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce those symptoms.
(Emphasis added.)
Notwithstanding this regulation, this Court has repeatedly held that an ALJ "may not disregard [a claimant's subjective] complaints solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them." O'Leary v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 1334, 1342 (8th Cir.1983) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., McDonald v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 361, 365 (8th Cir.1983); Northcutt v. Califano, 581 F.2d 164, 166 (8th Cir.1978); Klug v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 423, 427 (8th Cir.1975). Although the absence of evidence showing an objective medical basis for pain may be considered in evaluating the credibility of the testimony about pain, such absence does not automatically compel a finding that the claimant's pain is not disabling. Whether or not a medical explanation for the pain can be given, it is nevertheless possible that the claimant is suffering from disabling pain.
The Secretary contends that the ALJ's reliance on the above regulation is harmless error in view of the ALJ's finding that Layton's testimony about her pain was not credible. The ALJ said this testimony was not credible because "she was able to sit immobile throughout the entire hearing which lasted in excess of one hour" and because "[h]er other allegations of severe restrictions were so inconsistent with the medical evidence to render her testimony incredible in its entirety." However, this finding of credibility conflicts with substantial evidence that shows that the pain was disabling. In particular, the record shows that Layton has persistently complained of severe back pain; that all doctors who examined her including her treating physician indicated that she suffered from chronic back pain; that Layton alleges her back pain resulted from moving a 350 pound patient; that in May 1980 she was hospitalized because of her complaints of back pain; and that she has been taking substantial doses of pain medication on a daily basis. We cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laird v. Stilwill
...which he does not agree unless he is explicitly told he must do so. In support of this allegation, the plaintiffs cite Layton v. Heckler, 726 F.2d 440 (8th Cir. 1984), where the Eighth Circuit held, "In view of the ALJ's failure properly to consider the subjective complaints of pain and the......
-
Laird v. Stilwill
...Administration has failed to bring agency regulations on subjective pain in line with the Polaski standard. See Layton v. Heckler, 726 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir. 1984) ("[W]e wish to underscore that we shall continue to upset the findings of the Secretary [on evaluation of subjective complaint......
-
Stieberger v. Heckler, 84 CIV 1302 (LBS).
...to the Secretary's policy of non-acquiescence in what she regards as unfavorable circuit court decisions."); Layton v. Heckler, 726 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir.1984) (reversing ALJ's denial of disability benefits based on failure to properly evaluate claimant's complaints of pain; "we shall cont......
-
Sumler v. Bowen
...recognize and apply this law in their decisions. Hillhouse v. Harris, 715 F.2d 428, 430 (8th Cir.1983)."28 See also Layton v. Heckler, 726 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir.1984) ("we shall continue to upset the findings of the Secretary until such time as she sees fit to comply with the decisions of ......
-
Table of cases
...v. Chater, 83 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996), 10th-04 Lax v. Astrue , 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. June 6, 2007), 10th-07 Layton v. Heckler , 726 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir. 1984), § 310.1 Lechner v. Barnhart , 321 F. Supp.2d 1015, 1035 (E.D. Wis. 2004), §§ 1105.1, 1105.2, 1702.7 Leckenby v. Astrue , 48......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Chater, 83 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996), 10th-04 Lax v. Astrue , 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. June 6, 2007), 10th-07 Layton v. Heckler , 726 F.2d 440, 442 (8th Cir. 1984), § 310.1 Lechner v. Barnhart , 321 F. Supp.2d 1015, 1035 (E.D. Wis. 2004), §§ 1105.1, 1105.2, 1702.7 Leckenby v. Astrue , 48......
-
Specific impairments issues
...severe crisis pain from her sickle cell anemia.” Higgins v. Apfel , 136 F. Supp.2d 971, 980 (E.D. Mo. 2001), citing Layton v. Heckler , 726 F.2d 440, 442 (8 th Cir. 1984). As there was no evidence inconsistent with the claim-ant’s allegations, the record compelled a finding that the claiman......