Polaski v. Heckler, 84-5085
| Citation | 739 F.2d 1320 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5085,84-5085 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 15,518 Lorraine POLASKI, et al., Appellees, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Mary G. Grau, Minneapolis, Minn., Mark Bohnhorst, Martha Eaves and Steven Moon, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
Donald A. Gonya, Randolph W. Gaines, Jason R. Baron, A. George Lowe, Gen. Counsel of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Md., Edward Rafel, Paul W. Day and Howard S. Scher, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Before HEANEY, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
On January 20, 1984, Lorraine Polaski filed a complaint in federal district court for the District of Minnesota, seeking review of the termination of her social security disability benefits by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). She later successfully amended her complaint to pursue her case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated disabled persons within the Eighth Circuit. The amended complaint alleges: first, that the Secretary is not following Eighth Circuit law by requiring that objective medical evidence fully corroborate a disability claimant's allegations of pain and other subjective complaints; and second, that the Secretary is not following Eighth Circuit law by terminating disability benefits absent new evidence demonstrating either that the claimant's condition has materially improved or that the original decision granting benefits was erroneous.
On April 27, 1984, the district court issued a preliminary injunction and revised its class certification order, 585 F.Supp. 1004. The court determined that the Secretary was nonacquiescing in Eighth Circuit decisions concerning both the standard for evaluating pain and other subjective complaints and the standard for evaluating medical improvement. The court enjoined the Secretary from denying or terminating disability benefits without following those decisions. It also provided for reconsideration of the claims of persons within the class under the proper standards.
On May 1, 1984, the Secretary sought an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal to our Court. The district court denied the motion for a stay on May 2, 1984. The Secretary filed a notice of appeal on May 15, 1984. On May 25, 1984, our Court granted a temporary stay pending appeal. We heard oral argument on June 12, 1984.
In her brief and at oral argument, the Secretary maintained that she had been applying Eighth Circuit cases concerning the standard for evaluating allegations of pain and other subjective complaints. At the conclusion of oral argument, we stated from the bench that our Court would defer any immediate action in order to allow the parties a chance to reach an agreement on the standard to be used in evaluating pain and other subjective complaints in cases within the Eighth Circuit.
On July 11, 1984, the Justice Department notified this Court that the parties reached a settlement, agreeing that the relevant standard is as follows:
A claimant has the burden of proving that the disability results from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Symptoms such as pain, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness are the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Englerth v. Colvin
...effect relationship between the impairment and the degree of claimant's subjective complaints need not be produced." Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). When evaluating evidence of pain, the ALJ must consider:(1) the claimant's daily activities;(2) the subjective eviden......
-
Johnston v. Colvin
...effect relationship between the impairment and the degree of claimant's subjective complaints need not be produced." Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). When evaluating evidence of pain, the ALJ must consider:(1) The claimant's daily activities;(2) The subjective eviden......
-
Frieden v. Colvin
...effect relationship between the impairment and the degree of claimant's subjective complaints need not be produced." Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). When evaluating evidence of pain, the ALJ must consider:(1) the claimant's daily activities;(2) the subjective eviden......
-
Stephens v. Astrue
...effect relationship between the impairment and the degree of claimant's subjective complaints need not be produced." Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). When evaluating evidence of pain, the ALJ must consider:(1) The claimant's daily activities;(2) The subjective eviden......
-
Federal court issues
...that the DDS does not properly evaluate subjective allegations under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929 (1996), and Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320 (8 th Cir. 1984) (supplemented, 751 F.2d 943 (8 th Cir. 1984), vacated , 476 U.S. 1167, 106 S.Ct. 2885, 90 L.Ed.2d 974, adhered to on remand ......
-
Case survey
...inconsistencies, and discussing the Polaski factors. Baker v. Apfel , 159 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir. 1998), citing Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984); Cline v. Sullivan , 939 F.2d 560, 565 (8th Cir. 1991). See also Callison v. Callahan , 985 F. Supp. 1182, 1187 (D. Neb.......
-
Issue topics
...and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; and functional restrictions. Id ., citing Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). When rejecting a claimant’s complaints of pain, the ALJ must make an express credibility determination, detailing reason......
-
Issue Topics
...and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; and functional restrictions. Id ., citing Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). When rejecting a claimant’s complaints of pain, the ALJ must make an express credibility determination, detailing reason......