Studaway v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
| Decision Date | 08 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1044,86-1044 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,343 Clarence STUDAWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
William M. Crawforth, argued, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
Geneva S. Halliday, argued, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee.
Before MARTIN, WELLFORD and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The district court denied Clarence Studaway's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the Secretary's denial of Social Security disability benefits. 622 F.Supp. 1044. Studaway contends that the denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. He also argues that it was error to hold that even though he was no longer capable of performing his particular job, he was capable of doing the same type of work and thus was not disabled. We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the denial of benefits and that it was not error to find that Studaway was not disabled because he could still perform the same type of work. We accordingly affirm the district court.
Studaway is a fifty-eight year old male with an eighth grade education. He was employed in a custodial position that sometimes required the lifting of forty to fifty pounds. In October of 1983 he was admitted to a hospital for alcohol addiction and subsequently underwent surgery on his bladder. He has not worked since the operation and his employer has placed him on disability retirement.
Studaway filed an application for Social Security disability benefits in January of 1984. At a Social Security hearing before an administrative law judge, Studaway claimed to suffer from leg and back pain, seizures and high blood pressure. He asserted that because of these maladies, he is incapable of standing for more than forty minutes and has a limited ability to lift. He also claimed that he cannot drive because of seizures and that the medication he takes for high blood pressure and pain makes him drowsy.
Studaway's treating physician reported a number of physical problems and concluded that Studaway was totally and permanently disabled. A consulting physician found only a non-severe impairment, and observed that Studaway's blood pressure was "not well controlled." The administrative law judge noted that the treating physician did not report a condition that would produce Studaway's complained of back and leg problems. The administrative law judge also observed that the only evidence in the medical record of seizures related to those caused by detoxification withdrawal.
On the basis of the treating and consulting physicians' tests and testimony, the administrative law judge found that Studaway has severe high blood pressure, but that his condition did not rise to the level of impairments meriting disability benefits. The administrative law judge determined that Studaway has a residual capacity for light work. He noted that although Studaway's particular job as a custodian involved some heavy lifting, custodial work can be performed at a light level. The administrative law judge then concluded that Studaway's impairments do not prevent his doing his past work, and that he was thus not disabled under the Social Security Act. This ruling was adopted as the Secretary's final decision. On appeal the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed the denial of benefits.
The definition of disability is the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(1)(A).
An individual ... shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Saul
...Heckler, 715 F.2d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1983)); see Martin v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1990); Studaway v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987); Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding "[the] claimant has the burden of proving an ......
-
Hunt v. Astrue
...ability to perform past relevant work does not depend on the demands of the particular job he previously held. See Studaway v. Secretary, 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987). Rather, a claimant must prove an inability to perform his former type of work rather than a specific former job. Id.......
-
Pittman v. Berryhill
...inquiry is whether the claimant can return to his past type of work rather than just her past job. Studaway v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987). It is the claimant's burden at step four of the sequential evaluation process to show an inability to return to......
-
Wilson v. Kijakazi
... ... (6th Cir. 1993); Wyatt v. Sec'y of Health & Human ... Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 683 (6th Cir ... Studaway ... v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 815 F.2d ... ...