Oppenheim v. Finch
| Decision Date | 19 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1335.,73-1335. |
| Citation | 495 F.2d 396 |
| Parties | Rena Sklar OPPENHEIM, Appellant, v. Robert H. FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (now Caspar Weinberger,) Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Rena Sklar Oppenheim, pro se.
George Beall, U. S. Atty. for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought by the claimant, Rena Sklar Oppenheim, against the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary denying her application for disability insurance benefits under §§ 216(i) and 223 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. On January 15, 1973, the district court entered an order affirming the Secretary's position, and this appeal followed. We vacate and remand for further inquiry.
The standard of review in cases of this nature is prescribed in § 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as follows: "The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." Under the law, the Secretary, not the courts, is charged with reconciling inconsistencies in the evidence. Thus, if his findings are supported by substantial evidence, his decision must be upheld. E. g., Underwood v. Ribicoff, 298 F.2d 850 (4th Cir. 1962). The courts are not to try the case de novo. At the same time, they must not abdicate their traditional functions; they cannot escape their duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are rational. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541 (4th Cir. 1964).
The claimant filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on July 25, 1967. Her primary complaints concern pain and stiffness of the right arm, which began in January, 1967, and bad vision; additional complaints include recurrent neck pain, toxemia, and uncontrollable bowel movements. She has also complained of headaches, confusion and nervousness since about April, 1967.
The record contains the reports of nine physicians who have examined the claimant on various occasions. Each report contains a statement of the objective medical findings made by the examining physician. After considering the record, the Appeals Council, on June 16, 1970, made a number of specific findings. Among them was the statement that "the claimant's impairments, individually and in combination, would not prevent her from performing light and sedentary work within the scope of her vocational training and experience." We find this assertion difficult to reconcile with Dr. Blum's conclusion that "any type of occupation might be quite difficult when it involves bookkeeping, and reading or clerical work of any sort."
When Dr. Blum, an ophthalmologist, examined the claimant, he found her vision to be 20/200 in each eye without glasses and only 20/80 with glasses. He also found that she was unable to use her eyes together properly because of a large strabismus.1 These medical findings are neither disputed nor contradicted by other medical evidence. Indeed, Dr. Goldberg's earlier examination tends to corroborate Dr. Blum's evidence.
The Appeals Council discounted these medical findings with the observation that the claimant's congenital visual impairment did not prevent her from doing clerical work or operating an automobile. This court, however, considers the decision of the Appeals Council to have been without foundation when it substituted its opinion for that of the ophthalmologists.
On remand, the Secretary should conduct further inquiry2 into Mrs. Oppenheim's eye condition with a view to determining her ability to perform sustained work of a clerical nature. Dr. Blum states such work would be "quite difficult." Accordingly, the scope of the inquiry should at least be directed toward determining the meaning of Dr. Blum's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Colvin
...its duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the Commissioner's conclusions are rational. Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th Cir. 1974). Dr. Jonas Dr. Jonas testified via telephone at Plaintiff's October 5, 2009 hearing as a medical expert in psychiatry. [R. 232......
-
HealthBridge Mgmt., LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...in the absence of contrary testimony. For this reason, my colleagues' plea for deference rings hollow. See also Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 398 (4th Cir.1974) (vacating and remanding because, inter alia, “[t]h[e] expert judgment is neither met nor contradicted by any other expert judg......
-
McPherson v. Astrue
...is to determine whether the ALJ's determination of the claimant's RFC is rational and based on substantial evidence. Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th Cir.1974). 1. Weight of Medical Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ improperly discredited the medical reports of Dr. S.K. Shammaa and......
-
Holguin v. Harris
...as suggested by plaintiff. Although a treating physician's testimony is entitled to great weight, see, e. g., Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 398 (4 Cir. 1974), the opinion of any particular doctor that a plaintiff is disabled is not determinative. See Bledsoe v. Richardson, 469 F.2d 1288......
-
Case survey
...Alexander v. Apfel , 14 F. Supp.2d 839, 842 (W.D. Va. 1998), citing Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389 (1971); Oppenheim v. Finch , 495 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1974). In regard to a claimant’s musculoskeletal impairments, the court in Alexander concluded that substantial evidence supported the......
-
Table of Cases
...803, 805 (8th Cir. 1992), § 202.2 Opgenorth v. Shalala , 897 F. Supp. 1199, 1203 (E.D. Wis. 1995), §§ 304.3, 1304 Oppenheim v. Finch , 495 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1974), § 203.1 Orbaker v. Apfel , 70 F. Supp.2d 291, 295-96 (W.D.N.Y. 1999), §§ 301.2, 1301.2 Ordewald v. Barnhart 351 F. Supp.2d 499......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...Alexander v. Apfel , 14 F. Supp.2d 839, 842 (W.D. Va. 1998), citing Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389 (1971); Oppenheim v. Finch , 495 F.2d 396 (4 th Cir. 1974). In regard to a claimant’s musculoskeletal impairments, the court in Alexander concluded that substantial evidence supported th......
-
Table of cases
...803, 805 (8th Cir. 1992), § 202.2 Opgenorth v. Shalala , 897 F. Supp. 1199, 1203 (E.D. Wis. 1995), §§ 304.3, 1304 Oppenheim v. Finch , 495 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1974), § 203.1 Orbaker v. Apfel , 70 F. Supp.2d 291, 295-96 (W.D.N.Y. 1999), §§ 301.2, 1301.2 Ordewald v. Barnhart 351 F. Supp.2d 499......