Muse v. Sullivan, 90-3221
| Decision Date | 18 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3221,90-3221 |
| Citation | 925 F.2d 785 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15950A Algiers MUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gerald Issokson, Barkan & Neff, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Christopher Carillo, Asst. Regional Counsel, Dallas, Tex., John P. Volz, U.S. Atty., Glenn Schreiber and Nancy A. Nungesser, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
I.
In September of 1985 Muse filed the claims that are the subject of this action, seeking supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. 1 Muse based these claims on complaints about back pain, neck pain, headaches, and foot problems. The Secretary of Health and Human Services ("the Secretary") denied the claims. At the subsequent hearing the administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Muse could not perform his past relevant work but could perform light work. The Appeals Council declined to review Muse's claim, and hence the ALJ's decision became the Secretary's final decision. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 405(g) (West 1983), Muse filed for judicial review of the decision in federal district court. In March of 1987, Muse requested that the Secretary reopen the case because, after the Secretary's previous denial of his claim, Muse had obtained a psychiatric report indicating that he is mentally retarded. The Secretary moved to remand the case for further determination. The Appeals Council then vacated its earlier denial and vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded the case to another ALJ for a new hearing.
On January 5, 1988 the ALJ heard Muse's case. On February 29, 1988, he recommended finding that Muse could perform all of his past relevant work and thus was ineligible for disability benefits. The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's recommendation, thus making it the Secretary's final decision. In the district court the Secretary moved to reopen Muse's case; the district court granted the motion. The Secretary then filed an answer to Muse's complaint. Muse moved for summary judgment on the ground that he had met the objective requirements of the social security regulations for disability resulting from retardation. The Secretary in turn moved for summary judgment on the ground that substantial evidence supported his decision. Following the recommendations of the federal magistrate, the district court granted the Secretary's summary judgment motion and dismissed Muse's suit. Muse then brought this appeal.
The following narration traces the portion of Muse's health history that is relevant to this appeal. From October 1981 until February 1982, Muse received treatment for respiratory problems and back and neck problems at Lallie Kemp Charity Hospital. The October 1981 tests showed Muse to have a full range of back and neck motion. X-rays in December 1981 showed a "questionable slight disc narrowing." The person who examined Muse at that time diagnosed a muscle spasm in Muse's neck and prescribed Motrin. Muse's examiners in January and February of 1982 also noted back and neck pain. Specifically, they noted a narrowed disc, but observed that the Motrin was controlling Muse's neck pain.
In September and November of 1982 Dr. Charles Genovese examined Muse at the request of the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources. Dr. Genovese diagnosed Muse as suffering from nervousness, arthritis, an old back injury, and a possible heart disorder. Dr. James Halley, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Muse on December 30, 1982. He reported that Muse complained of pain in his neck, lumbosacral spine, and in his extremities. Also at that examination Muse refused to walk on his heels because of his foot calluses. Dr. Halley noted no abnormalities, found good but slightly limited motion in Muse's back and neck, and noticed no muscle spasms in Muse's neck or back. Dr. Halley concluded that Muse may have been suffering from "old lumbosacral strain and cervical strain," that Muse exhibited no evidence of nerve-root irritation that would indicate a ruptured disc, and that Muse exaggerated his symptoms. He also concluded that Muse could do moderate work. During the same general time period, the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources requested that Muse get an eye-examination. Dr. Ralph Maxwell diagnosed Muse as being hyperopic and presbyopic, but described Muse's condition as "good" and said that there were no working conditions that Muse need avoid.
From February to May of 1986 Muse received treatment from a physician whose name does not appear in the record. Over the course of these eleven or so visits, Muse's conditions--especially his back and neck pain and shortness of breath--appeared to be responding to drug treatment and were improving with each visit. Although on the day of his seventh visit Muse suffered a cervical neck sprain in an automobile accident, by the eighth visit Muse was already responding well to physical therapy and analgesics prescribed for those conditions. The physician described the result of his neurological examination of Muse as unremarkable and characterized Muse's headaches as "fairly nondescript." The doctor continued for awhile to prescribe mild medications for pain. On the eleventh visit, in May 1986, the doctor reported that Muse was "doing fine," that he complained of no back pain, and that the results of his neurological examination were normal. The doctor's notes for that visit indicate that at that point Muse was "dismissed from [the doctor's] care."
It was not until February of 1987 that Muse was examined by a psychiatrist. At that time Dr. Nathan Lubin administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test ("WAIS"), the Bender-Gestalt test, and the Wide Range Achievement Test ("WRAT"). On the WAIS test Muse scored a verbal I.Q. of 62, a performance I.Q. of 67, and a full-scale I.Q. of 62. Dr. Lubin concluded that the Bender-Gestalt test results suggested "gross neurological impairment" that could have contributed to mental retardation. Also, Muse scored below the third-grade level on the reading, spelling, and arithmetic portions of the WRAT. Dr. Lubin concluded that Muse could not manage his personal finances and that he would require close care for the rest of his life.
At the request of the Secretary, Muse was examined again in November of 1987 by Dr. John Pleune. Dr. Pleune administered the same tests as Dr. Lubin had. This time Muse scored a verbal I.Q. of 61, a performance I.Q. of 63, and a full-scale I.Q. of 58. During the tests Dr. Pleune noted that, despite Muse's use of glasses during the testing, he may have had difficulty seeing some of the small details. Muse apparently performed better on tests involving large figures, but had problems on the object-assembly section of the WAIS irrespective of the size of the figures used. The Bender-Gestalt test suggested "possible organic disfunctioning." The WRAT test administered by Dr. Pleune also yielded scores below the third-grade level in reading, spelling, and mathematics. The doctor suggested that Muse possessed limited judgment, could not abstract verbally, and had a very short immediate memory. He concluded that Muse was incapable of working, that his ability to follow directions was poor, and that he could not manage his personal finances. Muse's ability to make occupational, performance, and personal-social adjustments also was found to be fair to poor.
In December of 1987 the Secretary requested that another psychiatrist examine Muse. Dr. James Denney conducted this test, but, instead of conducting the same tests that had been done by the previous psychiatrists, he based his findings largely on his interview with Muse. He found, among other things, that Muse may have suffered from mild depression, that he followed a "goal-directed thought process," that he behaved appropriately in social situations, that he was slightly dependent on his wife, and that he was "culturally deprived if not mildly retarded." Dr. Denney concluded that, although Muse suffered from an adjustment disorder and anxiety, he could manage his personal finances and his ability to make occupational, performance, and personal-social adjustments was fair to good.
II.
The standard of review in disability cases under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 405(g) is whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the Secretary's findings. Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir.1987). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance. It is 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 (1976), quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938). If supported by substantial evidence the Secretary's findings are conclusive. Id. 402 U.S. at 390, 91 S.Ct. at 1422; 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 405(g). The relevant statute defines disability as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment ... which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 423(d)(1)(A) (West Supp.1990).
For the most part, the claimant bears the burden of proving his disability. Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 526 (5th Cir.1987). In evaluating a disability claim the Secretary follows a five-step sequential process, the first four steps of which place the burden on the claimant. First, a claimant must not be presently working. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520(b) (1990). Second, a claimant must establish that he has an "impairment or combination of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Colvin
...where the scores were inconsistent with the claimant's college record and work history as an algebra teacher); Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789-90 (5th Cir. 1991) (finding IQ results questionable in light of the claimant's work experience, education, and demeanor at the hearing)). Howeve......
-
Brown v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.
...Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1994); Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990); Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). A finding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only where there is a conspicuous absence of credible choices o......
-
Doddy v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.
...Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1994); Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990); Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). A finding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only where there is a conspicuous absence of credible choices o......
-
Robinson v. Barnhart
...cannot, in fact, perform the alternate work suggested. See Masterson, 309 F.3d at 272; Boyd, 239 F.3d at 705 (citing Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir.1991)); Shave, 238 F.3d at 594 (citing Crowley v. Apfel, 197 F.3d 194, 198 (5th Cir.1999)); Carey, 230 F.3d at 135. A finding tha......
-
Case survey
...prove that he cannot in fact perform the work suggested.’” Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698, 705 (5th Cir. 2001), quotingMuse v. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991). (2) The claimant’s burden of proof comes to bear in steps one through four of the sequential disability evaluation proce......
-
Issue topics
...failed to raise the ALJ bias issue to the Appeals Council, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Muse v. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 785, 790-91 (5th Cir. 1991). Seventh Circuit The Seventh Circuit noted that if there is sufficient evidence of bias to entitle the claimant to re......
-
Issue Topics
...failed to raise the ALJ bias issue to the Appeals Council, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Muse v. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 785, 790-91 (5th Cir. 1991). Seventh Circuit The Seventh Circuit noted that if there is sufficient evidence of bias to entitle the claimant to re......
-
Table of cases
...1983), §§ 201.1, 202.2, 203.7 A-49 TABLE OF CASES Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 (6th Cir. 2000), § 601.2 Muse v. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 785, 790-791 (5th Cir. 1991) §§ 107.1, 1508 Musgrave v. Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1336, 1374-75 (10th Cir. 1993), 10th-04, §§ 504.5, 1205, 1207.1 Musgrov......