Scott v. Callahan

Decision Date10 September 1997
Docket NumberNo. 97 C 0001.,97 C 0001.
Citation977 F.Supp. 856
PartiesAlbert E. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. John J. CALLAHAN, Commissioner of Social Security<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Marcie E. Goldbloom, Frederick J. Daley, Frederick J. Daley, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Jack Donatelli, U.S. Atty.'s Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CASTILLO, District Judge.

On January 9, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Albert Scott's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d), 1381a, 1382c(a)(3)(A). He now appeals that decision in federal district court as permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which grants federal courts the power to review the Social Security Commissioner's final decisions2 via a federal civil action. The accepted procedural vehicle for obtaining judicial review of a social security benefits determination is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which both Scott and the Commissioner have submitted here.3 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the ALJ's decision.

RELEVANT FACTS

We begin with a brief overview of the facts, then move on to a more detailed discussion of the record. At the time of the hearing in November 1994, Scott was forty-eight years old, living with his wife in a first floor apartment. He has a ninth grade education and can read and write. For ten years, he worked steadily as a truck driver delivering produce until he was fired in March 1991 for allegedly padding his hours. Before that, Scott spent eight years in prison. He has not been arrested since.

Scott has been plagued with hypertension for years. He takes medication that lowers, but does not alleviate, his high blood pressure. At five foot seven and 239 pounds, he also suffers from obesity. Scott's heart is enlarged, and doctors have observed a "spot" on Scott's chest X-rays. These conditions are monitored by Scott's treating physician, Dr. Dizon, whom Scott sees at least once per month. Scott was hospitalized for uncontrollable hypertension and related complications in February 1990, September 1990, and May 1992; the most recent hospitalization was precipitated by an attack of congestive heart failure.4 Each time Scott was admitted, doctors noted that Scott had stopped taking his medication. Administering medication consistently improved Scott's condition, and he was always discharged with medication and instructions to follow a low-salt diet.

Scott protectively filed for DIB and SSI benefits on October 8, 1991. He alleged a disability onset date of July 30, 1991, claiming that uncontrollable high blood pressure and an enlarged heart precluded employment. The onset date's significance is unclear, however, since it does not coincide with any documented health problem and Scott had stopped working four months earlier for reasons unrelated to his health. The Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied both claims on December 19, 1991, and Scott declined to pursue them further.

Scott then filed a second application for both SSI and DIB on June 24, 1992, alleging the same disability onset date and impairments, as well as a "spot on [his] chest." The SSA denied these applications on October 23, 1992. Scott's request for reconsideration was denied on July 19, 1993, and on August 2 he requested a hearing before an ALJ. The hearing was held on November 2, 1994; Scott was unrepresented. Upon considering both Scott's October 1991 and June 1992 applications for benefits, the ALJ denied them in a written opinion issued January 19, 1995. He found that although Scott suffered from a severe impairment — hypertension with status-post congestive heart failure — which prevented him from returning to his previous occupation, it left him with the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform sedentary work available in the national economy. Consequently, the ALJ ruled that Scott was not disabled. Scott next hired an attorney and petitioned the Appeals Council to review the ALJ's decision. His petition was denied on November 15, 1996.

On January 2, 1997, Scott filed a complaint for judicial review in this Court. His contentions are twofold: 1) Scott did not validly waive his right to representation before the ALJ, who subsequently failed his duty to develop the record in light of Scott's unrepresented status; and 2) the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and contains legal error. We now consider the record to determine the validity of Scott's assessment.

I. Scott's Testimony

Scott was the sole witness at the hearing. Before taking Scott's testimony, the ALJ began with a few preliminary matters. First, he mentioned Scott's right to representation:

Q: You also have the right to have an attorney or other representative represent you if you wish. An attorney or representative will assist you in preparing your case and will help you in developing the case, and assist you in answering any questions or asking additional questions other than the ones I may ask. Some of them don't charge a fee at all. Some of them work on a contingency fee; they don't charge you unless they collect anything. So it's up to you whether or not you want them or not. You have that right if you desire. What do you wish to do, sir?

A: Well, I can continue on myself.

Q: All right, sir. That's up to you.

(R.41). Second, the ALJ turned to new allegations in Scott's August 1993 hearing request. In addition to the physical impairments listed in Scott's 1991 and 1992 applications, the hearing request claimed for the first time that Scott was suffering memory loss, nervousness, and an unwillingness to be around people and attend to his hygiene. In response to the ALJ's question about the status of these problems, Scott answered, "Well, I'm a little better now...." Id. Asked whether his doctor had recommended psychiatric treatment or prescribed "mental medication of any kind," Scott replied in the negative. The ALJ did not probe further. Finally, the ALJ noted the exhibits he had on file and questioned whether Scott had any additional evidence to offer. Scott responded that he did not.

Scott testified that he was 48 years old, 5 feet 7 inches tall, and 239 pounds — up 14 pounds in the previous six months. He lives with his wife in a first-floor apartment. His education ended in the ninth grade, and he is capable of reading and writing. On the day of the hearing, Scott arrived by way of public transportation, and walked three or four blocks to the hearing from the bus stop. He had to slow his pace, but did not stop for any reason other than to obey traffic lights.

From 1981 to 1991 Scott worked as a truck driver for various companies, always delivering produce.5 The job required heavy lifting at times, Scott shouldered weights of over 100 pounds. His most recent employer dismissed him in March 1991 for alleged dishonesty regarding work hours. Afterward, Scott received unemployment compensation for about a year. On this subject, the ALJ commented: "So you realize that when you draw unemployment you have to say that you're ready, willing and able to work." (R.47) Scott replied that he understood this. In the summer of 1992, Scott worked a temporary job (a few weeks) as a driver for the Chicago Housing Authority.

Scott attributes his inability to work partly to uncontrollable high blood pressure. The ALJ asked what about Scott's condition started to preclude work on the disability onset date:

Q: Why, since March of '91,6 sir, when you say you've been unable to work, does your blood pressure prevent you from working?

A: Because my blood pressure elevates and it goes up, you know, and the medicine they take — that they gives me —

Q: Uh-huh.

A: — and I have to just, you know — it makes me (INAUDIBLE) and everything. I can't, you know — I have

Q: I see you're taking Lopressor and Procardia for your blood pressure.... Does that control your blood pressure?

* * * * * *

A: It helps, yeah.

Q: Yes, it does help. Does it help or does it control the pressure?

A: It helps it. It doesn't control it ....

(R.50). Scott clarified that his medication lowers his blood pressure, but not to the point that it becomes normal. The ALJ asked again:

Q: How does that prevent you from working though?

A: Because it don't — it elevates on me. Sometimes my blood pressure —

Q: Well, how does your high blood pressure prevent you from working? The fact that your pressure's high ... why does that prevent you from working?

A: Because the doctor said I might pass out, anything....

(R.50-51). Since 1990, Scott has passed out a total of four times: twice over the last two years he was employed, and twice since.

The ALJ moved onto Scott's second ground for benefits — an enlarged heart and spot on his chest:

Q: You also say, sir, that you have an enlarged heart and a spot on your chest. How does that prevent you from working, sir?

A: Well, my enlarged heart, the doctor said that causes swelling in my legs and joints —

(R.52) Scott told the ALJ that his legs and joints were swollen most of the time, including that day. He explained that he was taking medication to alleviate the swelling and that it "sometimes" worked. Scott told the ALJ that he was able to take the medications prescribed for his conditions.

Scott last saw his treating doctor, Dr. Dizon, for his heart and blood pressure maladies three months earlier, in August 1994. Generally, Scott sees Dr. Dizon about once or twice a month. When asked whether his condition had changed since May 1993, the date Dr. Dizon submitted a written report to the Bureau of Disability Determination Services, Scott stated that his condition was the same. He has not been hospitalized since May 1992.

After questioning Scott about his impairments, the ALJ proceeded to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Gotz v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 25 Junio 2002
    ...of a mental impairment must be established by medical evidence, not only by the claimant's statement of symptoms. Scott v. Callahan, 977 F.Supp. 856, 858 (N.D.Ill.1997) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508); see also SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *4 (medical evidence alone is considered in determini......
  • Kora v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • 11 Agosto 2021
    ... ANDREW SCOTT KORA v. ANDREW M. SAUL COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Civil Action No. 20-327-JWD-RLB United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana August 11, ... medical evidence'” or recontact a medical source ... See Scott v. Callahan, 977 F.Supp. 856, 867 (N.D ... Ill. 1997) (quoting Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, ... 693 (7th Cir. 1994)). The ALJ is only obligated ... ...
  • Lundeen v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • 27 Marzo 2014
    ...be errorwhen the rest of the medical evidence shows that the claimant is not being treated for that symptom. See Scott v. Callahan, 977 F. Supp. 856, 872 (N.D. Ill. 1997). With respect to chronic headaches, Lundeen only points to one medical record showing that she has this symptom. She doe......
  • Hickey v. Carolyn Colvin Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 25 Junio 2015
    ...on the merits of this complaint[.]" Vaile v. Chater, 916 F. Supp. 821, 823 n. 2 (N.D. Ill. 1996). See also Scott v. Callahan, 977 F. Supp. 856, 858 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 1997). They are, of course, routinely filed in cases of this type. However, "the court's review is limited to a determination of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2015
    ...fingers for repetitive hand-finger actions.” Samuel v. Barnhart , 295 F. Supp.2d 926, 945 n.9 (E.D. Wis. 2003). In Scott v. Callahan , 977 F. Supp. 856 (N.D. Ill. 1997), the court relied on Social Security Rulings 96-9p and 83-10 in noting that the definition of sedentary work requires an a......
  • Assessment of disability issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Contents
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...altogether on the basis that they contained “leading questions” prepared by the claimant’s attorney). But see Scott v. Callahan , 977 F. Supp. 856, 868 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (holding that the ALJ was not required to recontact a treating doctor as the treating doctor’s reports provided an adequat......
  • Specific impairments issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • 3 Agosto 2014
    ...claimant ever treated for a mental impairment. Williams v. Chater , 915 F. Supp. 954, 967 (N.D. Ind. 1996). See also Scott v. Callahan , 977 F. Supp. 856, 868 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (stating that although the ALJ had a duty to fully and fairly develop the record, “it was [the claim-ant’s] respons......
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...fingers for repetitive hand-finger actions.” Samuel v. Barnhart , 295 F. Supp.2d 926, 945 n.9 (E.D. Wis. 2003). In Scott v. Callahan , 977 F. Supp. 856 (N.D. Ill. 1997), the court relied on Social Security Rulings 96-9p and 83-10 in noting that the definition of sedentary work requires an a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT