Pack v. Celebrezze
| Decision Date | 08 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1146. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | Walter S. PACK, Plaintiff, v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Defendant. |
J. Paul Clark, Logan, W. Va., for plaintiff.
Harry G. Camper, Jr., U. S. Atty., and George D. Beter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Huntington, W. Va., for defendant.
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare that he was not entitled to a period of disability under Section 216(i) of the Social Security Act, as amended. For the reasons hereinafter stated, it is now found that the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence and that defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
On February 17, 1959, plaintiff filed an application to establish a period of disability. This application was denied by the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance both initially and upon reconsideration. On July 14, 1961, a hearing examiner also found that plaintiff was not entitled to a period of disability. Plaintiff then requested the Appeals Council to review the decision of the hearing examiner. This request was granted on September 22, 1961. The Appeals Council on April 26, 1962, after considerating the case de novo, similarly found that plaintiff was not entitled to the establishment of a period of disability based on his application of February 17, 1959, and, therefore, affirmed the hearing examiner's decision in a separate opinion. This decision of the Appeals Council became the final decision of the Secretary which is now before this court for judicial review.
In order to establish a period of disability plaintiff had to establish that he was under a disability that would continuously preclude him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration on February 17, 1959, and that he met the special earnings requirements for the purpose of entitlement. The parties to this action do not dispute that plaintiff met the special earnings requirements. Consequently, that issue is not now before this court.
Plaintiff was 43 years old when the alleged disability began on November 21, 1955, and was approaching age 47 when the disability application was filed in which he alleged that the nature and extent of his impairment consisted of "lung trouble, weakness." The record indicates that he spent most of his working life in the coal mines. Among other things he worked as a motorman and brakeman. His last job in 1955 was as an operator of a shuttle buggy. Plaintiff admitted that the jobs of motorman and brakeman were rather easy work. Prior to the time he last worked in the mines in 1955, plaintiff was out of work for a time in 1953 or 1954 when the mine in which he was working closed. After leaving the mines, plaintiff worked about two months in 1956 as a common laborer on a hospital construction project. Later, he worked briefly scraping houses and doing various odd jobs. He has completed four grades of elementary school.
Plaintiff's chief complaint concerns his lungs although he also complains of arthritis, heart trouble, and eye weakness. At the hearing plaintiff admitted that he could read and write but that he needed glasses to do so. He could read both the large and the small print in the newspaper with glasses. His attorney conceded that he did not believe that there was any eye problem in this case. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence which would indicate that he had a disabling eye impairment. There is also no evidence that plaintiff has an arthritic condition which could be deemed disabling. In a report dated June 6, 1961, Dr. James H. Heckman stated that plaintiff does have some mild arthritic changes in the lumbar area but otherwise the examination was normal. He concluded his report by saying:
"We do not feel that the Orthopedic situation represents any real disability and regardless of the patient's complaints referable to his back we feel that he has no disability from an Orthopedic standpoint. * * *"
The clinical evidence clearly shows that plaintiff's heart is essentially normal. Physical examinations and chest X-rays made at the Man Memorial Hospital in 1959 and 1960 showed that his heart was normal. An electrocardiogram made in July, 1959, showed changes thought to be due to clockwise rotation, although the possibility of a remote anteroseptal injury pattern (old heart attack) could not be excluded. A second electrocardiogram made in July, 1961, showed no changes from the previous one. The diagnosis was possible coronary artery disease. Dr. Jack H. Baur in a report dated May 31, 1961, stated that plaintiff's cardiac silhouette was normal and that the electrocardiogram was within normal limits. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that plaintiff does not have a disabling eye, heart, or arthritic condition.
As to his primary difficulty, lung trouble, there is voluminous medical evidence. There can be no doubt that plaintiff does suffer from lung difficulty. There is, however, much conflicting evidence as to the extent of that trouble. To set out in detail all of this medical evidence would not only unnecessarily extend this opinion but also serve no useful purpose. However, the pertinent facts will be summarized below.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial