Morgan v. Gardner

• Decision Date: 02 June 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 6256.
• Parties: Floyd P. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. John GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

254 F. Supp. 977

Floyd P. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. John GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

Civ. No. 6256.

United States District Court N. D. Oklahoma.

June 2, 1966.

A. H. Slemp, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff.

Lawrence A. McSoud, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

The plaintiff, by his Complaint, seeks a review and reversal or remand of a decision of the Appeals Council of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals denying to the plaintiff a period of disability and disability benefits under Sections 216(i) and 223(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C., Sections 416(i), 423(a)). The Appeals Council Decision is the final order of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C., Section 405(g)) the plaintiff has sued to set aside the administrative decision of the Secretary. Under Section 205(g) the Court has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the Decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for hearing, but the findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.

The plaintiff claims that the Decisions of the Hearing Examiner and Appeals Council were unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with the medical evidence; that he should be allowed to introduce additional medical evidence; and that the findings of the Hearing Examiner and Appeals Council are contrary to the Social Security Act. Defendant answers by stating that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and that the Court should dismiss the Complaint in accordance with Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, and affirm the Decision of the Appeals Council.

The Appeals Council determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to a period of disability, or disability insurance benefits, under Section 216(i) and 223, respectively, of the Social Security Act, as amended, and made the following Findings:

"1. The claimant met the special earnings requirements for the purpose of entitlement to disability insurance benefits;

2. The claimant has no significant impairment of cardiovascular function by reason of hypertension, arteriosclerotic heart disease or generalized arteriosclerosis;

3. The claimant sustained no significant diminution of functional capacity by reason of hemorrhoids, prostate trouble, shoulder pain, leg cramps, irritable duodenal bulb, and/or inguinal hernia;

4. The claimant has an inadequate personality and some anxiety which imposes no limitation on his ability to work;

5. The claimant's impairments either singly or in combination are not shown to be of such severity as to prevent him from returning to his usual occupation as a truckdriver or to any of the other various occupations in which he has engaged in the past;

6. The claimant was not under a `disability,' as defined in the Act, at a time for which his application of October 10, 1962, was effective."

The test for disability consists of two parts: (1) a determination of the extent of the applicant's physical or mental impairment, and (2) a determination of whether or not that impairment results in an inability to engage in any substantial activity. Janek v. Celebrezze, 336 F.2d 828 (Third Cir. 1964). In addition, there are four elements of proof to be considered in making a finding of claimant's ability or inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity. These are: (1) the objective medical facts, which are the clinical findings of treating or examining physicians divorced from their expert judgment or opinions as to the significance of these clinical findings, (2) the diagnoses, and expert medical opinions of the treating and examining physicians on subsidiary questions of fact, (3) the subjective evidence of pain and disability testified to by claimant, and corroborated by relatives and neighbors with due consideration for credibility, motivation and medical evidence of impairment, (4) claimant's educational background, work history, and present age. Callahan v. Celebrezze, 242 F.Supp. 507 (W.D. North Carolina — 1965).

The plaintiff testified he was 52 years of age, 5'6½" in height, and weighed approximately 130 pounds. His family consists only of his wife who is employed at a salary of approximately $200 per month. They live on a 20 acre farm which includes pasture land, chickens, and cows. The plaintiff has a seventh grade education, no vocational skill training, has work experience as a carpenter, elevator operator, delivery boy, fry cook, military service (U. S. Navy—cook), farm laborer, welders helper, security guard, and truck driver. He receives a pension of an unknown amount from the Veteran's Administration and public welfare assistance in the form of surplus commodities.

The plaintiff's subjective medical evidence adduced at the...