Morrison v. Apfel
| Decision Date | 17 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3865MN,97-3865MN |
| Citation | 146 F.3d 625 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16067B Michael J. MORRISON, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Daniel E. Phillips, Fargo, ND, argued, for Appellant.
Michael C. Messer, Chicago, IL, argued (David L. Lillehaug, United States Attorney, Thomas W. Crawley and Suzanne E. Duman, Chicago, IL, on the brief), for Appellee.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Morrison appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny Morrison's application for disability insurance benefits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings by the Social Security Commissioner.
On December 2, 1993, Michael Morrison filed an application with the Social Security Administration for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423 (1994). After his application was denied initially and on reconsideration, he requested and received a hearing. Morrison testified before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on September 26, 1994. James W. Berglie, a vocational expert, also testified at the hearing.
The evidence from Morrison's doctors produced at the administrative hearing showed that Morrison suffers from "progressive degenerative arthritis" which causes multiple joint problems. Tr. at 391. At various times, the arthritis has caused him pain in his lower back, knees, hips, hands, ankles, and shoulders. Tr. at 304, 308, 311, 315, 356. Between 1986 and 1990, Morrison underwent arthroscopic surgery several times on his knees for problems related to his arthritis. Tr. at 315. Morrison testified at the hearing that he could not sit for more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time; he cannot stand for more than fifteen minutes at a time; he cannot walk for more than 200 feet at one time; he cannot walk without a cane; and he cannot lift and carry more than ten pounds on a regular basis. Tr. at 63, 66, 69, 71. Some of the medication Morrison takes for pain and inflammation caused blurred vision for ten to fifteen minutes and caused some diarrhea, which Morrison alleviates by drinking milk. Tr. 55-56. Morrison also produced evidence at the hearing that on March 25, 1993, a doctor with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conducted an extensive medical examination on him. The VA doctor determined that because of his medical problems, Morrison was "unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment" and was entitled to a veteran's pension as of May 18, 1992. Tr. at 356.
The evidence at the hearing also revealed that Morrison is obese and has struggled with weight problems for years. In March 1993, a few months before he filed for disability benefits, Morrison weighed approximately 330 pounds and stood at six feet, one-and-a-half inches tall. Tr. at 359. Dr. Lee A. Cristoferson, one of Morrison's doctors, remarked in April 1993 that Morrison's weight was his biggest problem, and that Morrison's obesity had caused most of the difficulties in his back, knees, and lower extremities. Tr. at 391. Cristoferson prescribed an exercise program for Morrison in early 1992, but Morrison, citing time and financial constraints, declined to participate. Tr. at 316. In May 1987, when he weighed 324 pounds, Morrison underwent gastroplasty surgery for his obesity, and subsequently lost 126 pounds. Tr. at 324. However, he later gained the weight back.
From 1988 to 1991, Morrison worked as a chef in a restaurant, a hotel, and a college cafeteria, but he stopped working in April 1991. Tr. at 38-39, 291. At the hearing, the ALJ questioned James Berglie, the vocational expert, about the possible jobs Morrison could take, given his functional limitations. The ALJ examined Berglie using hypothetical questions, asking Berglie what type of work Morrison could perform given the alleged standing, sitting, and walking limitations caused by his arthritis, and given Morrison's skills and training. Tr. at 99-102. The ALJ did not mention Morrison's obesity in the questions he posed to Berglie. Berglie responded that, given Morrison's alleged functional limitations, he could perform work as a cashier, a gate attendant, a telemarketer, a phone dispatcher, a receptionist, and possibly as a factory worker in some capacity. Berglie also stated that thousands of these types of jobs exist in the regional economy in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Tr. at 101, 103.
In a decision filed on June 20, 1995, the ALJ denied Morrison's application for disability insurance benefits and held that he had the capacity to work. The ALJ's decision reviewed Morrison's medical history and the statements of Dr. Cristoferson and Dr. Joseph Sleckman, another of Morrison's doctors. It also reviewed Morrison's work history and the testimony of the vocational expert. While the ALJ found that Morrison had some "severe" impairments, he also found that through March 31, 1993, the date he was last insured for disability insurance purposes, Morrison "was able to perform the light and sedentary jobs identified by the vocational expert in response to the hypothetical situation." Appellant's Add. at 33. Notably, the ALJ never addressed the report by the VA doctor that Morrison could not work and was entitled to a government pension.
Morrison filed a timely request for review of the decision, and the Appeals Council denied the review of the ALJ's decision on July 17, 1996. Appellant's Add. at 36. Morrison then filed a complaint in the District Court. The Social Security Commissioner and Morrison both filed motions for summary judgment, with the Commissioner asking the District Court to affirm the ALJ's decision, and Morrison asking the Court to reverse or remand the case for further proceedings. On August 20, 1997, the District Court, adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, denied Morrison's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Morrison now appeals.
We hold that the ALJ erred in two respects. First, in his decision, the ALJ should have addressed the determination by the VA that Morrison is permanently and totally disabled. It is true that "the ALJ does not have to discuss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tindall-Kolthoff v. Colvin
...even though they are not binding on an ALJ, are entitled to some weight and must be considered in the ALJ's decision. Morrison v. Apfel,146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilkins v. Callahan, 127 F.3d 1260, 1262 (10th Cir. 1997); Baca v. Department of Health and Human Services, 5 F.3......
-
Elliott v. Colvin
...even though they are not binding on an ALJ, are entitled to some weight and must be considered in the ALJ's decision. Morrison v. Apfel,146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998). Indeed, an "ALJ is not bound by the disability rating of another agency when he is evaluating whether the claimant is di......
-
Webb v. Berryhill
...agencies are not binding on the Commissioner, they are entitled to be considered by the ALJ and given some weight. Morrison v. Apfel, 146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998). Alternately, the Commissioner argues the ALJ's failure to find severe musculoskeletal impairments at step two was harmless......
-
Henson v. Berryhill
...even though they are not binding on an ALJ, are entitled to some weight and must be considered in the ALJ's decision. Morrison v. Apfel, 146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilkins v. Callahan, 127 F.3d 1260, 1262 (10th Cir. 1997); Baca v. Department of Health and Human Services, 5 F.......
-
Attacking Vocational Expert Testimony
...though that testimony was, any objection to it is forfeited . Donahue v. Barnhart, supra, 279 F.3d at 446; compare Morrison v. Apfel , 146 F.3d 625, 628-29 (8th Cir. 1998). Barrett v. Barnhart , 355 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir. 2004). The ground rules for qualifying expert witnesses in federal......
-
Issue Topics
...such a decision is not binding on an ALJ in reviewing a Social Security applicant’s claim for disability benefits. Morrison v. Apfel , 146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998), citing Jenkins v. Chater , 76 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996). The court explained that the VA determination was significan......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...such a decision is not binding on an ALJ in reviewing a Social Security applicant’s claim for disability benefits. Morrison v. Apfel , 146 F.3d 625, 628 (8 th Cir. 1998), citing Jenkins v. Chater , 76 F.3d 231, 233 (8 th Cir. 1996). The court explained that the VA determination was signific......
-
Prehearing Procedure
...that a decision maker “should explain the consideration given to these decisions in the notice of decision.” See also Morrison v. Apfel , 146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998); Baca v. Department of Health & Human Servs. , 5 F.3d 476, 480 (10th Cir. 1993); Davel v. Sullivan , 902 F.2d 559, 560 ......