Martinez v. Chater, 95-50042
| Citation | 64 F.3d 172 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-50042,95-50042 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14784B Arturo S. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Joe Travis Garrison, Austin, TX, Mary Ellen Felps, Austin, TX, for plaintiff-appellant.
James H. DeAtley, Austin, TX, James William Jennings, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., San Antonio, TX, Joanna Tate, Asst. Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before DUHE, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Arturo S. Martinez appeals from the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's affirmance of denial of Social Security benefits to Martinez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). On appeal Martinez insists that a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing is necessary and that the Commissioner's determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Finding frivolous the suggestion that a remand for adducing additional evidence is necessary, and finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision, we affirm the rulings of the district court.
Martinez applied for disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income in January 1992, alleging that he had been disabled since November 7, 1991, due to diabetes, a hernia, and kidney and stomach problems. The Commissioner concluded that Martinez was not disabled and denied relief. The Commissioner also denied Martinez' request for reconsideration.
A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on March 6, 1993, at which Martinez was represented by counsel, and at which Martinez, his daughter, a medical expert, and a vocational expert testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ referred Martinez to an internist for a consultative examination. After reviewing the additional evidence, the ALJ determined that Martinez was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (the Act). The Appeals Council denied Martinez' request for review, and the decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).
Martinez filed suit in the district court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner answered the complaint and both parties filed briefs. The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed, finding substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's determination that Martinez was not disabled. After a de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's factual findings and legal conclusions, overruled Martinez' objections to the recommendation, and dismissed the complaint. This appeal ensued.
Appellate review of the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits is limited to determining whether (1) the decision is supported by substantial evidence and (2) proper legal standards were used to evaluate the evidence. Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1990). If the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, then the findings are conclusive and the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1422, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Villa, 895 F.2d at 1021-22 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner must follow a five-step sequential process to determine whether (1) the claimant is presently working; (2) the claimant's ability to work is significantly limited by a physical or mental impairment; (3) the claimant's impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in the appendix to the regulations; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the claimant cannot presently perform relevant work. See Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir.1991); 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520. In this case, at the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Martinez could perform his past relevant work.
We weigh four elements of proof when determining whether there is substantial evidence of disability: (1) objective medical facts; (2) diagnoses and opinions of treating and examining physicians; (3) the claimant's subjective evidence of pain and disability; and (4) his age, education, and work history. Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1991). We may not, however, reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo. Cook v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 391, 392 (5th Cir.1985). The Commissioner, rather than the courts, must resolve conflicts in the evidence. See Patton v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 590, 592 (5th Cir.1983).
Martinez suggests that a remand is required because the consultative medical examination ordered by the ALJ failed to include blood tests and x-rays suggested by the medical expert. At the hearing, medical expert Dr. William Daily recommended that Martinez have a follow-up examination which should include a complete blood count, SMA-20 blood chemistry tests, and chest x-rays. 1 Dr. Gregory Moore's subsequent consultative medical examination included these tests; therefore, Martinez' argument is frivolous.
Martinez also suggests that the case should be remanded so that he can have a stress test and arteriogram. The suggestion is frivolous too. Dr. Daily did not state that these tests were necessary to evaluate Martinez' condition.
Martinez was 52 years old when the hearing was held. He has only a first-grade education and is not fluent in English. His past employment experience includes work as a machine sander and a fruit picker. Both occupations are considered medium work.
Martinez testified that he is always very tired and his back and legs hurt; that his legs are numb when he first wakes in the morning; that his shoulders hurt; and that he frequently becomes dizzy and drowsy from his diabetes. According to Martinez, his doctor has told him that if his "sugar does not go down," he will have to take insulin shots. He stated that he has to get up to go to the bathroom approximately eight times a night; that he sometimes has blurry vision and problems breathing; and that he takes pills for chest pain and has problems with his bladder leaking.
Martinez grocery shops while his grandson pushes the cart. It hurts his back to bend and his hands are stiff, but he can perform small motor tasks. He stated that he washes dishes, mops and sweeps, cleans the bathroom, and cooks. He spends most of his days watching TV and resting.
Martinez' daughter, Rose Mary Pantoja, testified that Martinez used to be a hard worker who maintained his yard and car, but he can no longer do this because of his back. Ms. Pantoja and other members of her family do her parents' heavy housework and yard work because Mr. and Mrs. Martinez are unable to do it themselves.
It is undisputed that Martinez suffers from non-insulin dependent diabetes and arthritis of the spine. The extent of his impairment from these conditions is disputed.
At the hearing, Martinez introduced a report dated September 1, 1992, from Dr. Yeung Chan, his treating physician, which stated that Martinez was unable to perform any type of work because he suffered from severe arthritis of the spine. Dr. Chan's records cited a December 9, 1991, x-ray indicating degenerative spinal arthritis, but the x-ray was not submitted with his report. Dr. Chan's notes also indicated that Martinez suffered from diabetes mellitus.
Martinez also introduced a report of a consultative examination performed on March 16, 1992, by Dr. Kenneth L. Long, which stated that Martinez suffered from:
1. Alleged diabetes without documentation. No laboratory data requested. The patient is on no medication for this problem.
2. Alleged low back problems without physical or x-ray findings of significance.
3. Alleged stomach problems (mainly abdominal bloating and bowel gas) without documentation.
Dr. Long noted that x-rays revealed ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. Astrue, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-710
...and is notinconsistent with ... other substantial evidence.'" Newton, 209 F.3d at 455 (5th Cir. 2000)(quoting Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1995)). As such, if the treating physician's opinion is deficient in either respects, then it is not entitled to controlling weight. T......
-
Hector v. Barnhart
...any corroboration by family and neighbors; and (4) the plaintiff's age, educational background, and work history. See Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir.1995); Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1991) (citing DePaepe v. Richardson, 464 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir.1972)). Any c......
-
Amburgey v. Barnhart
...v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir.1999); Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir.1995). The elements of proof to be weighed in determining whether substantial evidence exists, include the (1) objective medic......
-
Puente v. Astrue
...any corroboration by family and neighbors; and (4) the plaintiff's age, educational background, and work history. See Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir.1995); Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir.1991) (citing DePaepe v. Richardson, 464 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir.1972)). Any c......
-
Case survey
.... . . the evidence supports a contrary decision.” Brister v. Apfel , 993 F. Supp. 574, 577 (S.D. Tex. 1998), citing Martinez v. Chater , 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1995). e. Sixth Circuit In Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security , 276 F.3d 235, 241 (6th Cir. 2002) , the claimant argued ......
-
Table of cases
..., 444 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2006), § 1604.11 Martinez v. Barnhart, 444 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006), 10th-06 Martinez v. Chater , 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1995), § 203.3 Martinez v. Commissioner , 306 F. Supp.2d 98, 99 (D.P.R. 2004), §§ 1203.6, 1603.5 Martinez v. Heckler , 735 F.2d ......
-
Assessment of disability issues
.... . . the evidence supports a contrary decision.” Brister v. Apfel , 993 F. Supp. 574, 577 (S.D. Tex. 1998), citing Martinez v. Chater , 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5 th Cir. 1995). e. Sixth Circuit In Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security , 276 F.3d 235, 241 (6 th Cir. 2002) , the claimant argue......
-
Table of Cases
..., 444 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2006), § 1604.11 Martinez v. Barnhart, 444 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006), 10th-06 Martinez v. Chater , 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1995), § 203.3 Martinez v. Commissioner , 306 F. Supp.2d 98, 99 (D.P.R. 2004), §§ 1203.6, 1603.5 Martinez v. Heckler , 735 F.2d ......