McDaniel v. Bowen, 85-7573

• Decision Date: 09 September 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-7573,85-7573
• Citation: 800 F.2d 1026
• Parties: Marie McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN * , Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1026

800 F.2d 1026

15 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 88

Marie McDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN ^*, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee No. 85-7573.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1986.

Floyd Sherrod, Legal Services Corp. of Alabama, Florence, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank W. Donaldson, U.S. Atty., Jenny L. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, CLARK, Circuit Judge and DOYLE ^*, Senior District Judge.

JAMES E. DOYLE, Senior District Judge:

Appellant McDaniel appeals from the district court's decision to affirm the determination of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services that she is not entitled to supplemental security income. The Secretary found McDaniel ineligible for supplemental security income under Sec. 1602 and Sec. 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act.

OVERVIEW OF THE RECORD

1. Procedural History

McDaniel, who was born December 14, 1925, applied to the Social Security Administration for supplemental security income alleging that she was disabled due to high blood pressure and ulcers. That application was denied and McDaniel did not appeal.

McDaniel applied again for supplemental security income alleging that she was disabled due to high blood pressure, varicose veins and gallstones. That application was denied. McDaniel filed a request for reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the Secretary found that McDaniel had not established her disability. McDaniel filed a request for hearing, and a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found McDaniel not disabled. McDaniel requested Appeals Council review, which was denied. The ALJ's findings, therefore, represent the final decision of the Secretary.

McDaniel commenced this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Secretary's decision. The district court affirmed the decision of the Secretary, finding that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence. McDaniel appeals from that decision, contending that the Secretary's finding that she does not suffer from a severe impairment is not supported by substantial evidence, and that the Secretary applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether her impairment is severe.

2. Medical Evidence

In a report dated April 4, 1983, Dr. Harold Blanton noted a variety of ailments suffered by McDaniel: arthritis generally and in the left knee in particular; hypertension that is difficult to control; dizzy spells and frequent headaches; a stomach disorder with frequent nausea, poor digestion and frequent vomiting, shortness of breath on exertion; intermittent depression; and general stiffness of joints. He noted that McDaniel had had fluid withdrawn from one knee on several occasions. He diagnosed acute and chronic gastritis, hypertension, general degenerative arthritis, mild depression, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease.

On April 26, 1983, McDaniel was admitted to the hospital with deep pains in her legs. She was treated for thrombophlebitis of the left leg and was discharged on April 29, 1983. She was treated with Heparin, Dalmane, Tylenol, Nubain and warm wet packs for her legs.

Also on April 26, 1983, Dr. Donald Stewart examined McDaniel's chest and diagnosed cardiomegaly and possible minimal right effusion or scarring.

In a report dated August 2, 1983, Dr. E.V. Khouri noted that McDaniel suffered from varicose veins and high blood pressure. In a report of contact dated August 13, 1983, Dr. Khouri noted that McDaniel's blood pressure was poorly controlled, that she had bilateral varicose veins, and some edema late in the day, but that she showed no statis dermatitis, brawny edema or ulcers.

On November 22, 1983, Dr. Stewart examined McDaniel for urinary tract and kidney problems. He reported extrarenal pelves with questionable mild calycectasis. ¹

In a report transcribed on December 5, 1983, Dr. Stephen Branning noted McDaniel's complaints of pain in her legs which is exacerbated by prolonged standing or walking, and McDaniel's nausea and poor digestion. He diagnosed hypertension with cardiomegaly, peripheral venous insufficiency, and nodular density, right side of lung, with some calcification--likely a benign lesion.

At the hearing before the ALJ on August 22, 1984, when McDaniel was 58 years of age, she testified as summarized here: McDaniel frequently vomits after she eats, and has frequent headaches and dizzy spells, leg pains, and occasional chest pains. She can walk about one half mile at one time; she has trouble sitting and standing for more than a half hour at a time; she has difficulty bending, stooping, climbing and reaching; she has difficulty concentrating and performing under stress or around noises and crowds. McDaniel lives on food stamps and receives no other income. Her only work experience was as a young woman working on her father's farm. McDaniel's activities include limited housework, going to church, some gardening and some sewing. She does not take her blood pressure medicine because it makes her dizzy; when she explained this to her doctor, he agreed she should stop taking the medicine; he did not prescribe alternative medication. She lives with some of her children who help her with the housework, cooking and gardening.

3. The ALJ's Findings and Conclusions

After summarizing the evidence in the record, the ALJ found that McDaniel has thrombophlebitis in the left leg, peripheral venous insufficiency, cardiomegaly, and probably a benign lesion on her lung. He found some of McDaniel's testimony not credible, particularly with regard to her doctor's acquiescence in her decision to stop taking her blood pressure medication and his failure to prescribe any alternative blood pressure medication. He found that McDaniel does not have any impairment which significantly impairs her ability to perform basic work-related activities, and therefore does not have a severe impairment under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.921. He also found that McDaniel was not under a disability as defined by 20 C.F.R. 416.920(c).

OPINION

1. Standard of Review

In reviewing a decision by the Secretary under Sec. 205(g) of the Social Security Act, the district court and this court must apply the same standard: we are bound to uphold the Secretary's findings if they are supported by "substantial evidence" and if there exists no other "good cause" to remand. The court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Secretary, but must determine whether there is " 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion' " that the plaintiff is or is not entitled to benefits. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216-17, 8 L.Ed. 126 (1938)).

This deferential standard of review applies only to findings of fact, however, and "no similar presumption of validity attaches to the Secretary's conclusions of law, including the determination of proper standards to be applied in reviewing claims." Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1389, (11th Cir.1982). Failure to apply the correct legal standard or to provide this court with a sufficient basis to determine that appropriate legal principles have been followed is grounds for reversal. Id.

Smith v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 1284, 1285 (11th Cir.1983).

2. Applicable Regulations

To qualify for supplemental security income, a claimant must be "under a disability," which is defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382c(a)(3)(A) as the inability:

... to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medical determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.

"Physical or mental impairment" is defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382c(a)(3)(C) as:

... an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Pursuant to the Act, the Secretary has issued regulations describing a five-step sequence to be followed in determining whether a claimant is entitled to supplemental security income (SSI): ²

(1) Is the claimant presently unemployed?

(2) Is the claimant's impairment severe?

(3) Does the claimant's impairment meet or equal one of the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1?

(4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? ³

(5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy?

An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads either to the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer to any question, other than step three, leads to a determination of "not disabled." 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.920(a)-(f).

McDaniel's burden in her claim for supplemental security income is to show that she meets the financial need requirement, that she is presently unemployed, that her impairment is "severe" within the meaning of the Act, and that she has no "former occupation." She may have the opportunity to prove that she has a listed impairment, automatically entitling her to disability benefits.

3. Issues in this Case

It is clear from the record that McDaniel met step one by proving that she is presently unemployed (and, had it been reached, step four, by proving she had no former occupation). This court assumes that McDaniel met the threshold financial need requirement; otherwise the Secretary would have reached no other question.

The ALJ found, however, that McDaniel failed at step two of the five-step sequential analysis, by failing to prove that her impairment is...