Moody v. Schweiker, LR-C-81-468.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
• Writing for the Court: EISELE
• Citation: Moody v. Schweiker, 555 F.Supp. 464 (E.D. Ark. 1982)
• Decision Date: 30 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. LR-C-81-468.,LR-C-81-468.
• Parties: Billie Jean MOODY, Plaintiff, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

555 F. Supp. 464

Billie Jean MOODY, Plaintiff, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

No. LR-C-81-468.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D.

September 30, 1982.

Jack D. Files, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.

Chalk S. Mitchell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EISELE, Chief Judge.

The defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is pending before the Court in this Social Security Disability Insurance case. The Court must determine whether the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which denied the plaintiff's disability claim, is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (1978). For the reasons stated herein, the Court remands the case to the Secretary for an elaboration of findings.

I. The plaintiff was born on July 12, 1931. (Tr. 35). Following eight years of formal education (Tr. 35), she worked in a California vegetable cannery from 1951 to 1957. (Tr. 36). From 1958 to 1978, she farmed land in Arkansas with her husband. (Tr. 38, 44-45).

The plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on February 13, 1980, alleging that she suffers from arthritis. She contended that the arthritis had rendered her disabled and cited an onset date of January 30, 1979. (Tr. 62-64). Hearing examiners denied her claim both initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 92, 94). The plaintiff subsequently testified at an evidentiary hearing conducted on January 27, 1981, that she periodically wears a back brace and that she has joint soreness in her hands, shoulders, elbows, and knees. (Tr. 41-42, 46-48, 51). She also stated that she had continued pain in her lower back. (Tr. 40-42). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the plaintiff's claim in his February 25, 1981, decision. (Tr. 5-11).

The medical evidence on which the ALJ based his opinion included the reports of three physicians who had examined the plaintiff. The first report, from Dr. Hugh Edwards, dated February 22, 1980, stated the following:

The plaintiff has a long history of low back and joint pain of extremities.... X-ray left knee mild degenerative arthritis. ... Long history of much nervousness and chronic anxiety state. Long history of obesity and she has not lost weight as recommended.... History of much pelvic pain and soreness.... Total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Since her surgery, she has continued having much lower left quadrant and low back pain.... Last seen 2-7-80 still complaining of pain in the low back, lower left quadrant and in joints of her extremities, particularly in her hands. Weight 189 pounds. There is no radiation of pain into the buttocks or extremities and no limitation of motion.

(Tr. 95). A subsequent examination by Dr. Edwards on March 18, 1980, revealed no physical change. (Tr. 98).

Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. C.E. Ransom, Jr., also provided medical evidence. During plaintiff's hospitalization from March 18, 1980, until March 21, 1980, Dr. Ransom found that the plaintiff suffered from "limitation of motion of the back with paravertebral muscle tenderness." (Tr. 102). Dr. Ransom's report noted that the plaintiff had been admitted complaining of pain in the left side of the abdomen extending into the back and that such pain had commenced after the plaintiff's hysterectomy in January 1979 and had continued from that time. The report further noted that the plaintiff's pain had increased since January 1980. (Tr. 101). Dr. Ransom's final diagnosis was "lumbosacral sprain." (Tr. 102).

In a subsequent report dated October 10, 1980, Dr. Ransom stated:

Mrs. Moody has Degenerative Arthritis of the Lumbar Spine with Facetal Arthritis. She has been treated conservatively with medications, corset and weight loss for the past 6 months. She has responded poorly to the treatment. She continues to have pain in her lower back and the posterior aspect of both legs and is unable to stand for long periods of time.

It is my opinion that this lady is unable to hold any gainful employment.

(Tr. 103).

The third physician, Dr. John Wilson, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined the plaintiff on April 7, 1980. (Tr. 106). In a letter to Dr. Ransom dated April 11, 1980, Dr. Wilson stated his opinion that the plaintiff suffered from "degenerative disc disease as well as facetal arthritis." He added: "She was placed on anti-inflammatory drugs and in a lumbosacral corset. She was also advised to lose weight." (Tr. 106). Dr. Wilson's letter included no assessment of the plaintiff's ability to work.

Based on these findings and the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that the plaintiff does not have a severe impairment, stating that "the medical evidence of record shows the claimant has the residual functional capacity to engage in certain of her past work sic." (Tr. 10-11). Regarding the pain allegations, the ALJ found:

The claimant's allegations of constant, severe, disabling pain, as relates to her arthritic condition, are not found to be credible in view of the lack of objective medical findings to support the presence of conditions which would severely disable this claimant.

(Tr. 11). He also stated, "The claimant has been placed on adequate medications described as anti-inflammatory drugs and a lumbosacral corset and encouraged to lose weight. While the impairments do require that the claimant take medication, this evidence does not indicate that the claimant's conditions are so severe as to prevent her from engaging in basic work-related functions." (Tr. 10).

The plaintiff then sought review of the ALJ's decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.970 (1982). (Tr. 3-4). After the Appeals Council denied review (Tr. 2), the plaintiff timely filed this complaint.

II. This Court must decide whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to deny disability insurance benefits to the plaintiff. The statute clearly sets forth the mode of analysis that the trier of fact must invoke. To reach a decision in favor of disability, the trier of fact must determine that an individual is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death, or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (1976).

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving an inability to perform her previous occupation because of a medically determinable ailment, Camp v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1325, 1332 (8th Cir.1981), and in reviewing the decision of the trier of fact, a court is not authorized to try the case de novo, or to consider additional evidence, or to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on questions of fact. Ginter v. Secretary of H.E.W., 621 F.2d 313, 313-14 (8th Cir.1980). Instead, a reviewing court must accept both the trier of fact's factual findings and the inferences drawn therefrom if the record as a whole provides substantial evidence that supports these findings and inferences. Russell v. Secretary of H.E.W., 540 F.2d 353, 355 (8th Cir.1976); Timmerman v. Weinberger, 510 F.2d 439, 442 (8th Cir.1975); Celebrezze v. Bolas, 316 F.2d 498, 500-01 (8th Cir.1963). Such "substantial evidence" must be more than a mere scintilla. Rather, it must constitute such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); Klug v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 423, 425 (8th Cir.1975); Blanscet v. Ribicoff, 201 F.Supp. 257, 260 (W.D.Ark.1962).

Furthermore, the Court must base its decision upon all the evidence in the record and not just the evidence favorable to the Secretary. Brand v. Secretary of H.E.W., 623 F.2d 523, 527 (8th Cir.1980). Lewis v. Califano, 574 F.2d 452, 456 (8th Cir.1978); Duncan v. Harris, 518 F.Supp. 751, 757 n. 6 (E.D.Ark.1980) (citing Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 487-91, 71 S.Ct. 456, 464-66, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (Taft-Hartley Act)).¹

III. In the case at bar, the plaintiff has complained of persistent pain and her physicians' reports corroborate the fact that she has suffered from this pain for several years. Courts have increasingly considered the claims of individuals whose allegations of disability stem either solely or partially from complaints of pain. On numerous occasions, the courts have found pain to fall within the Social Security Act's definition of disability. See, e.g., Northcutt v. Califano, 581 F.2d 164, 166 (8th Cir.1978); Benson v. Matthews, 544 F.2d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 1977).

Nevertheless, such cases are inherently difficult to adjudge for they often turn on evidence that is primarily subjective in nature. The view that has emerged in the Eighth Circuit is that while objective proof of the existence of pain can lend credence to a plaintiff's contention, mere subjective evidence, standing alone, can also serve as the basis for a disability determination. Andrews v. Schweiker, 680 F.2d 559 at 560 (8th Cir.1982); Brand v. Secretary of H.E.W., 623 F.2d 523, 526 & n. 2 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 840 (11th Cir.1982) (citing Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408, 412 (5th Cir.1981)). Thus, the trier of fact must consider subjective evidence of pain, even if such evidence is not corroborated by objective medical evidence. Brand, 623 F.2d at 526. In such cases, the trier of fact faces the difficult task of attempting to distinguish the meritorious claims from the spurious by examining the truthfulness of the claimant's assertions.

In Duncan v. Harris, 518 F.Supp. 751 (E.D.Ark.1980), this Court attempted to articulate a framework for analyzing painbased claims. Its four-part guideline for evaluating claims that rest...