McSwain v. Bowen, 86-8550
| Decision Date | 13 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-8550,86-8550 |
| Citation | 814 F.2d 617 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,269 Willie Earl McSWAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Deborah Whitmore Hicks, Eufaula, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Joe D. Whitley, U.S. Atty., Frank L. Butler, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., Marie T. Ransley, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
Willie McSwain appeals from the district court's judgment affirming the Secretary's denial of his claim for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm.
McSwain says that he was totally disabled as of December 3, 1981 because of osteoarthritis, asthma, epilepsy, cataracts on eyes, and neurotic depression. At the time of his hearing before an ALJ McSwain was 47 years old, six feet, four inches tall, and weighed 165 pounds. He had a high school education and no vocational training. His past relevant work was that of a shipping/receiving clerk.
The ALJ found that although McSwain's impairments prevented him from returning to his past relevant work, he had the residual functional capacity to perform other work that existed in the national economy and was therefore not disabled. The Appeals Council denied McSwain's request for review, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Secretary for purposes of appeal. See Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir.1986). The district court affirmed the Secretary's decision that McSwain was not disabled on the ground it was supported by substantial evidence. McSwain raises many issues on appeal, all of which are without merit.
McSwain contends that his vision impairment met or equalled an impairment in the Secretary's listing of impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Secs. 2.01-.04. Specifically, McSwain asserts that the Secretary failed to consider whether he met the standard for statutory blindness under Sec. 2.04 of the listing of impairments, which is a percentage of overall loss of visual efficiency. A claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits if he has an impairment listed in the listing of impairments. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(d) (1986). The claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled or blind. Id. Sec. 404.1512(a). McSwain failed to present medical evidence that his loss of visual efficiency met the requirements of Sec. 2.04 of the listing of impairments.
The Secretary did not accord improper weight to the opinions of McSwain's treating physicians. The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to substantial weight unless "good cause" is shown to the contrary. In evaluating the medical evidence "[t]he Secretary must specify what weight is given to a treating physician's opinion and any reason for giving it no weight, and failure to do so is reversible error." MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir.1986). The Secretary accorded proper weight to McSwain's medical evidence. Only Dr. Kellum concluded that McSwain was totally disabled. His opinion, however, is not supported by clinical evidence, and the Secretary properly discounted it. Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). Dr. Gardner, who treated McSwain at Upson County Hospital in December 1981, did not conclude that McSwain was disabled; he stated that McSwain should be able to return to work in one or two days. More recent Upson County Hospital records do not contradict Gardner's earlier opinion. The Secretary also properly credited the results of Dr. Dixon's consultative examination of McSwain's vision over the opinion of Dr. Hughes, McSwain's treating ophthalmologist, because Hughes' report was based on McSwain's condition prior to cataract surgery in his left eye. Finally, the reports of Drs. Davis and Simpson are not supported by specific clinical evidence. Also their opinions are not entitled to deference because as one-time examiners they were not treating physicians. Gibson v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 619, 623 (11th Cir.1986).
The Secretary did not improperly reject McSwain's subjective complaints of pain. The Secretary must consider a claimant's subjective testimony of pain if there is evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the pain or (2) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rease v. Barnhart, No. 1:04-CV-3239-JMF.
...physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Indeed, the opinion of a one-time examiner is not entitled to deference. McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir.1987). Nevertheless, this Court is also compelled to conclude that the ALJ misread Dr. Marrinson's report in so far as the ALJ......
-
McGaster v. Saul, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00321-N
...F.3d at 1440)). On the other hand, the opinions of non-treating physicians "are not entitled to deference ..." McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Accord Everett v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, No. 18-13697, 2019 WL 2522201, at *2 (11th Cir. June 19, 2019) (per c......
-
Woods v. Berryhill
...An ALJ is not required to afford special deference to the opinions of non-treating physicians such as Dr. Estock, see McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), and an "ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding." Sharfarz v. Bowen......
-
Shields v. Saul
...F.3d at 1440)). On the other hand, the opinions of non-treating physicians "are not entitled to deference ..." McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). On January 18, 2017, the SSA substantially revised the regulations governing how the Commissioner considers medic......
-
Table of cases
...2000), § 604.6 McQueen v. Apfel , 168 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 1999), 5th-99, §§ 106.1, 107.1, 107.21, 603.10, 607.4 McSwain v. Bowen , 814 F.2d 617, 620 (11th Cir. 1987), § 1210.5 McVey v. Shalala , No. 92 CV 1127 (CBA), 1994 WL 764194, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1994), § 1505 Meanel v. A......
-
Table of Cases
...2000), § 604.6 McQueen v. Apfel , 168 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 1999), 5th-99, §§ 106.1, 107.1, 107.21, 603.10, 607.4 McSwain v. Bowen , 814 F.2d 617, 620 (11th Cir. 1987), § 1210.5 Table of Cases McVey v. Shalala , No. 92 CV 1127 (CBA), 1994 WL 764194, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1994), § 1......