Martinez v. Heckler
Decision Date | 09 May 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-1843,83-1843 |
Citation | 735 F.2d 795 |
Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15,508 Eliseo MARTINEZ, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant- Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Vernon Lewis, West Tex. Legal Services, San Angelo, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
James A. Rolfe, U.S. Atty., Paulina M. Jacobo, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lubbock, Tex Thomas Stanton, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before RUBIN, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Eliseo Martinez, Jr., appeals the district court's judgment affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of appellant's claim for a continuing period of social security benefits.
Martinez is a forty-year old man who was thirty-seven years old on the date his disability was determined to have ceased, February 20, 1981. He has a seventh-grade education with no vocational training and can speak English "a little bit". (Tr. 28, 214, 249) Martinez' work experience was primarily as a backhoe operator and construction laborer. (Tr. 218, 250) His last job was as a laborer at a concrete company from September 1979 through November 1979. (Tr. 250)
The medical evidence of record shows that appellant received injuries in an automobile accident in December 1973, consisting of fractures of both tibias and fibulas, and a fracture of his right humerus. (Tr. 309) Residuals of these injuries, together with osteomyelitis of the left tibia formed the basis of the June 27, 1980 administrative decision that appellant had been disabled since October 1, 1979. (Tr. 257-261) In determining that appellant's disability had ceased on February 20, 1981, the Administrative Law Judge relied primarily on the report of Dr. Vernon Ryan, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Ryan indicated that the claimant could stand and walk for two to four hours in a normal work day, sit at work for eight hours, and could lift and carry up to ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally. Dr. Ryan also felt that claimant could raise his hands, arms and feet with no restrictions. Based on this report, the ALJ concluded that Martinez had regained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision.
Martinez contends on appeal that the ALJ, by applying the vocational rules of Appendix 2, used an improper legal standard because appellant's abilities do not coincide with the criteria of the rules. We agree and reverse the district court.
Judicial review of the Secretary's decision is limited to whether substantial evidence exists to support the determination that the claimant is not disabled under the Social Security Act, Dorsey v. Heckler, 702 F.2d 597, 602 (5th Cir.1983); DeMandre v. Califano, 591 F.2d 1088, 1091 (5th Cir.1979), and whether errors of law occurred, Dellolio v. Heckler, 705 F.2d 123, 125 (5th Cir.1983).
Martinez argues the ALJ misapplied Rules 201.23, 201.24 and 201.25 of Appendix 2. We conclude that of the rules considered by the ALJ, the only one which can potentially apply to claimant is 201.23. Rule 201.23 provides that an individual with Martinez' physical handicaps who is illiterate or unable to communicate in English, is 18...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delgado v. Barnhart
...is subsumed under inability to communicate in English."). However, as a consequence of the Fifth Circuit's holding in Martinez v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1984), ALJs in this circuit are instructed that, "when illiteracy and inability to communicate in English are alleged or appear to......
-
Flecha v. Shalala
...the fact that she is both illiterate and unable to communicate in English precludes Rule 201.23 from applying. See Martinez v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 795, 796-97 (5th Cir.1984) ("if claimant is both illiterate and unable to communicate in English, he does not fall within the criteria set out in ......
-
Pasic v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...is inapplicable where, as here, "'the claimant is both illiterate and unable to communicate in English.'" (Id. (quoting Martinez v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1984)).) Interpreting Pasic's argument in a light most favorable to him, the Court finds it unpersuasive. Rule 201.28 clearly d......
-
Chavez v. Department of Health and Human Services, 95-15855
...heavy manual labor, and his educational deficits bar him from most desk jobs. In Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 86-3(5) ("AR 86-3(5)") to Martinez v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1984), the Secretary interpreted the usually disjunctive "or" in this regulation to be conjunctive, apply......
-
Appendices
...Other Work—The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Solely Non-Exertional Impairments · AR 86-3(5) Martinez v. Heckler , 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1984)—Individuals Who Are Illiterate and Unable to Communicate in English · AR 01-1(3) Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000......
-
SSR 96-1p: Application by the Social Security Administration (SSA) of Federal Circuit Court and District Court Decisions
...Adjudication of a Subsequent Disability Claim—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act Fifth Circuit AR 86-3(5): Martinez v. Heckler , 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1984) Disability Program—In- dividuals Who Are Illiterate and Unable To Communicate in English—Titles II and XVI of the Social Se......
-
Issue topics
...to communicate in English. applicaBle rulings Acquiescence Ruling 86-3(5) (“AR 86-3(5)”) Issued in response to Martinez v. Heckler , 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1984), AR 86-3(5) provides that when illiteracy and the inability to communicate in English are both alleged or appear to be in questio......
-
Prehearing Procedure
...in English have more adverse vocational factors than an individual who is only illiterate? The Fifth Circuit in Martinez v. Heckler , 735 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1984), decided that vocational expert testimony was necessary, that the Medical-Vocational Guidelines could not be used to deny benefi......