Roth v. Shalala
| Decision Date | 23 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1407,94-1407 |
| Citation | 45 F.3d 279 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14359B Gary W. ROTH, Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William Bauer, Burlington, IA, for appellant.
John Beamer, U.S. Atty., Des Moines, IA, for appellee.
Before MAGILL and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, * Senior District Judge.
Gary W. Roth appeals from a final order of the district court 1 affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying him supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Roth filed for benefits, alleging that he became disabled on November 15, 1990, due to back problems. The evidence introduced at the July 13, 1992 hearing establishes the following facts. Roth has a GED certificate and has attended truckdriving school. He has worked as a truckdriver, dishwasher, cook, park attendant, and a Wal-Mart department manager. Roth and his wife testified that Roth's activities in the home are seriously limited by his condition and the pain it causes. They testified that Roth loses sleep due to pain, suffers from headaches, and is limited in his ability to walk, to carry objects weighing more than ten pounds, and to perform household chores. They also testified that Roth tries to do things around the house but must take frequent fifteen- to twenty-minute breaks to relieve the pain. They stated that Roth is unable to handle stress and his temper. Roth was taking no medication at the time of the hearing, although he had taken medication in the past.
Roth's back problems may be traced to 1982, when he sought treatment for low back pain and related conditions and was told to begin an exercise regimen. After his discharge from the military in 1985, Roth entered the work force, where he remained until he was fired from his job as a truckdriver in 1990. Roth testified that his back condition was worsening, and that he would have been forced to quit if he had not been fired.
On December 21, 1990, Roth sought treatment at the University of Iowa Hospital (the University) for chronic low back pain and left hip pain. X-rays showed no gross loss of disc space height, good alignment, and no gross instability. The University staff concluded that Roth's symptoms "essentially sound minimally changed" from those complained of in 1982. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan performed in January 1991 revealed a questionable central disc bulging, but no apparent herniation.
Roth returned to the University on February 8, 1991, and was further examined. Roth was mildly uncooperative during this examination. Ultimately, the University recommended against surgery (which displeased Roth) and referred him to the Spinal Diagnostic and Treatment Center (SDTC). The SDTC evaluated Roth eleven days later.
The SDTC evaluation revealed that Roth was not self-limiting and exhibited very little pain behavior. His lifting limits were 100 pounds no more than four times per hour and a repetitive lifting limit of 50 pounds. Roth had a 91% range of motion. The SDTC concluded that Roth's pain was due to severe deconditioning and inactivity. The SDTC recommended that Roth begin reconditioning and decrease or stop his smoking, but the staff observed that Roth did not seem committed or convinced that aggressive rehabilitation was in his best interest. The SDTC staff believed that the formal rehabilitative program was not necessary because the reconditioning would be effective treatment.
On April 1, 1991, Roth was examined by Dr. Pence, a chiropractor, who diagnosed Roth as suffering from lumbar disc degeneration with displacement resulting in posterior facet syndrome with nerve root compression and resulting sciatica and lumbalgia. Dr. Pence recommended that Roth's sitting, standing, walking and related activities be restricted, and that Roth lift and carry no more than ten pounds.
On October 28, 1991, Dr. Lumber, a specialist in internal medicine, examined Roth at the request of the state agency. Roth reported that he could lift twenty pounds, but that carrying it caused him pain. He reported that he could stand or sit for one to two hours. Roth's range of motion was limited. Dr. Lumber concluded that if Roth's reported history was accurate, he would not be able to do any work requiring standing or sitting for more than two hours at a time.
On January 27, 1992, Dr. England performed a psychiatric evaluation of Roth, concluding that Roth was able to concentrate and follow instructions, but that his ability to interact with others was somewhat impaired. Dr. England noted that Roth reported depression and sleep disturbance due to his pain. Roth believed that there was nothing that he or anyone else could do for his pain, and that disability was the only answer. Dr England recommended further evaluation, 2 and was of the opinion that treatment with anti-depressants could alleviate many of Roth's symptoms.
After the hearing, the ALJ denied Roth's application for benefits. The Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Roth's petition for review. The district court affirmed the decision of the ALJ, which became the final decision of the Secretary, and Roth appealed.
Roth argues that there was not substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Secretary's decision to deny benefits. Our review of this issue is very narrow, and Roth bears the burden to prove that he is entitled to benefits. Our review of the administrative record convinces us that substantial evidence supports the decision to deny benefits because: (1) Roth's condition is treatable and he has not complied with the prescribed treatment; and (2) the ALJ properly discredited Roth's subjective complaints of pain.
We review the Secretary's decision only to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir.1992). We consider not only the evidence that supports the Secretary's position, but also the evidence in the record that detracts from the decision. If, after making this review, "it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the [Secretary's] findings, we must affirm the decision" of the Secretary. Id.
Roth bears the burden of proving disability. Locher v. Sullivan, 968 F.2d 725, 727 (8th Cir.1992). Although the ultimate burden of persuasion does not shift, the burden of production shifts. In the first stage of the analysis, Roth must demonstrate that he is unable to do his past relevant work. The ALJ found that Roth was unable to return to his past relevant work. Admin.R. at 18. Thus, the burden shifted to the Secretary to demonstrate that there are jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy that Roth is able to perform. The Secretary satisfied this burden by providing a vocational expert who testified as to the availability of jobs in the national economy for persons with various characteristics.
"If an impairment can be controlled by treatment or medication, it cannot be considered disabling." Stout v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir.1993). Failure to follow a prescribed course of remedial treatment without good reason is grounds for denying an application for benefits. Johnson v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir.1989); see also 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1530(a); 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.930(a).
There is ample...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alverio v. Chater
...his past relevant work." Frankl, 47 F.3d at 937 (citing Reed v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 812, 815 (8th Cir.1993)); see also Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Locher v. Sullivan, 968 F.2d 725, 727 (8th Cir.1992)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(c); see also Johnston v. Shalala, 42 F.3......
-
Bauer v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
...and that she would likely benefit from a preventative regimen-but the Plaintiff did not follow up with him. See, Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir.1995)("Failure to follow a prescribed course of remedial treatment without good reason is grounds for denying an application for benefi......
-
Davis v. Callahan
...with medical evidence, that the claimant has the RFC for other work that exists in the national economy. Counsel cites Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir.1995), for the proposition that the Commissioner's burden includes only the duty to establish a significant number of jobs in the......
-
McPherson v. Apfel
...Cir.1995), reiterated that RFC is determined at step four, where the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Citing to Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir.1995), the court further stated that, at step five, the burden of production shifted to the Commissioner to produce evidence of ......
-
Case survey
...criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify. Anderson v. Apfel , 996 F. Supp. 869, 872 (E.D. Ark. 1998), citing Roth v. Shalala , 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995); Selders v. Sullivan , 914 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir. 1990); Marciniak v. Shalala , 49 F.3d 1350, 1353 (8th Cir.1995). e. Ni......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...[the claimant’s] ability to work or sufficiently improve his condition. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1530(a), 416.930(a); Roth v. Shalala , 45 F.3d 279, 282-83 (8th Cir. 1995); Kirby v. Sullivan , 923 F.2d 1323, 1328 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1991). Id. at 843-844. (2) The Eighth Circuit held that impairments......
-
Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
...(8th Cir. 2000) (“burden of production” shifts to Commissioner, but “burden of persuasion” remains with claimant) and Roth v. Shalala , 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995) (same) with Griffon v. Bowen , 856 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (8th Cir. 1988) (“burden of persuasion” shifts to Secretary). See al......
-
Table of Cases
...(D. Kan. 1996), §§ 107.5, 602.1, 1107.5 Table of Cases Ross v. Shalala , 865 F. Supp. 286, 293 (W.D. Pa. 1994), § 1210.5 Roth v. Shalala , 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995), §§ 104.2, 107.1, 204.9, 208.1, 312.9 Rousey v. Heckler , 771 F.2d 1065, 1069 (7th Cir. 1985), §§ 105.4, 203.2, 203.16,......