Taylor v. Bowen

Decision Date18 February 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-1471,85-1471
Parties, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,662 J.W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis W. BOWEN, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Mark Heller, Wichita Falls, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., Howard A. Borg, Asst. U.S. Atty., Ft. Worth, Tex., A. Faye Dance Sheppard, Thomas Stanton, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before RUBIN, JOHNSON and JONES, Circuit Judges.

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

Guided by all the limitations on judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying disability benefits, we find, nonetheless, that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the denial of benefits to this claimant for the period from January 21, 1982, to July 26, 1984, when disability benefits were awarded in a separate proceeding. Accordingly, we reverse the decision denying benefits for that period.

I.

J.W. Taylor is a 56-year-old man, six feet six inches tall, who weighs 275 pounds. He has only a sixth-grade education. For thirty years, he worked regularly as a truck driver despite a congenital abnormality in his feet. His right foot has an excessively high arch, called pes cavus: the toes contract up above the foot and do not touch the ground. The toes on Taylor's left foot are not equally affected, but they also contract up and do not touch the ground when he stands. As a result, while Taylor's left foot requires a size 13 shoe, his right foot needs only size 10. These abnormalities cause painful pressure on the metatarsal heads on the under surface of his feet and have led to the formation of calluses beneath the metatarsal heads.

As a result of another health problem, Taylor began having pain in his knees in 1978 but was able to continue working by taking prescription anti-inflammatory drugs. On January 21, 1982, he was seriously injured in an accident when his truck jackknifed. He was hospitalized for four days, then released with instructions to take muscle relaxants and analgesics to relieve the pain, to use a heating pad on his knees, and to take hot baths. He continued to complain of pain and was referred by his worker's compensation insurer to an orthopedist a few weeks later. The orthopedist thought Taylor was suffering from cervical strain and prescribed medication. When, in April, Taylor continued to complain of pain in his left chest and left knee, the orthopedist ordered bone scans. These showed that Taylor had suffered fractured ribs and that he had advanced degenerative disease of the left knee.

Taylor also complained of numbness in his hands. An electromyogram revealed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, so he underwent successive carpal tunnel release operations in June and September, 1982. Taylor was left with a permanent loss of dexterity of fifteen percent in his right hand and twenty percent in his left hand. The orthopedist anticipated that Taylor would have a further period of temporary total disability lasting until November. Subsequent progress reports show that Taylor's recuperation from the wrist surgery lasted into January, 1983. While it is not clear that the carpal tunnel syndrome resulted from the truck accident, Taylor had been continuously disabled since that happened six months before.

Taylor continued to suffer knee pains. In October, the orthopedist found that he had rather severe degenerative joint disease, but his pain was controlled with Feldene, a drug that has anti-inflammatory as well as analgesic properties.

In January 1983, Taylor began to suffer problems with his feet. He testified that, as a result of the hot baths, which the doctor had prescribed for his knees, the calluses on his feet softened and began to peel. When he began the exercise program prescribed by his doctor, Taylor testified, bleeding ulcers began to develop on the bottom of his feet.

Taylor was examined by an orthopedic surgeon on April 26, 1983, who found ulcers beneath the first and fourth metatarsal heads on his right foot. Taylor told the surgeon that the ulcers definitely were not present more than eight weeks earlier. Surgery was recommended, but could not be performed until antibiotics reduced the infection. Until then, Taylor was required to stay off his feet and to keep them elevated. The doctor prescribed Keflex, which reduced the infection, but Taylor testified that he was unable to afford the recommended foot operation.

The Social Security Administration rejected Taylor's application for benefits on June 13, 1983. Taylor requested reconsideration, which was denied. The examiner concluded that Taylor's disability resulting from the truck accident and his wrist surgery had not disabled him for the requisite twelve months. His disability from the bleeding ulcers on his feet "with proper treatment should resolve prior to the passage of twelve months," and so could not justify disability payments either.

In the meantime, his foot infection continued. His physician, in a letter dated September 22, 1983, wrote that Taylor was unable to walk without a custom-made walker, and could not bear weight, lift, drive, or do any physical labor. The physician stated that Taylor had been thus disabled continuously since the truck accident in January, 1982. He opined that Taylor's condition would not improve, and that he would not be able to return to work until approximately three months after foot surgery was performed.

Thereafter, on September 26, 1983, an administrative law judge held a hearing on Taylor's request for reconsideration. Taylor testified that he was unable to do any work and had to keep his feet elevated at all times. On October 10, Taylor obtained funds for surgery from the Texas Rehabilitation Commission, and his physician amputated the fourth metatarsal on his right foot because of osteomylitis. This was reported to the Social Security Administration on November 30.

The administrative law judge did not render his report until March 13, 1984, six months after the hearing. The ALJ found that Taylor had not worked since his accident in January 1982, that he could not return to his former work, and that he was suffering severe impairments. He also found, erroneously however, that Taylor had a high school education and, apparently taking both this and Taylor's physical condition into account, could perform a full range of light work.

The Social Security Administration regulations that define light work require the ability to frequently lift or carry objects weighing up to ten pounds and "a good deal of walking or standing." 1 Even sedentary work, as defined in the regulations, includes occasional lifting of up to ten pounds and a moderate amount of walking, standing, and carrying. 2 Although the evidence in the record showed that Taylor was incapable of these efforts at the time of the hearing, the ALJ found that the corrective surgery recommended for Taylor's feet would lead to a full recovery within four months.

In May, Taylor appealed the administrative law judge's denial of benefits to the Social Security Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals. In support of his appeal, Taylor furnished letters from his doctors stating that he continued to have osteomylitis of the fourth toe on his right foot and his diabetes had resulted in the continued development of ulcers on the bottoms of his feet. Despite the corrective surgery, he had not recovered as expected, and could not yet walk normally or work.

On June 11, 1984, the Appeals Council denied Taylor's request for review. In an explanatory letter sent two weeks later, a member of the Appeals Council wrote that the Council was of the opinion that Taylor could do light work. Although the ALJ had mistaken Taylor's level of education, the regulations directed a finding of "not disabled" for a claimant with a sixth grade education capable of light work. Although the Appeals Council had before it uncontradicted evidence that Taylor had been unable to meet the level of exertion defined by the regulations as necessary for light work, that the disabling condition of his feet had continued unalleviated for over fifteen months, and that the ALJ's decision had been premised in part on an anticipated recovery that had not occurred, it found no reason to vacate the decision. Taylor then appealed to the courts.

The district judge rendered summary judgment dismissing Taylor's action, stating that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Despite...

To continue reading

Request your trial
159 cases
  • Ferguson v. Secretary of HHS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • February 2, 1996
    ...Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the first four steps. Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008, 1010 (5th Cir.1987); Taylor v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir.1986); Johnson v. Heckler, 769 F.2d 1202, 1210 (7th Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Bowen v. Johnson, 482 U.S. 922, ......
  • Brady v. Apfel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 16, 1999
    ...employment, the burden shifts back to the applicant to show he cannot perform the alternative labor. See Id.; Taylor v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir.1986); 20 C.F.R. § At the fifth step, the Commissioner engages in a two-pronged analysis: First, the Commissioner determines an applica......
  • Brown v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • June 12, 2003
    ...review [that is] deferential without being so obsequious as to be meaningless." Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d at 496; Taylor v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir.1986). Determining the Existence of an Eligible "Disability" is a legal status that is determined by the ALJ after evaluating expert......
  • Johnson v. Barnhart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • March 18, 2003
    ...review [that is] deferential without being so obsequious as to be meaningless." Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d at 496; Taylor v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir.1986). Determining the Existence of an Eligible "Disability" is a legal status that is determined by the ALJ after evaluating expert......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...causes, the claimant’s foot condition was an impairment that in fact caused his disability to last more than 12 months. Taylor v. Bowen , 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1986). Sixth Circuit The Commissioner must first determine whether the claimant’s conditions are disabling in the absence o......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ..., 399 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2005), 8th-05, § 1803.1 Taylor v. Bowen , 664 F. Supp. 19, 22-23 (D. Me.1987), § 106.10 Taylor v. Bowen , 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1986), § 1208.5 Taylor v. Callahan , 969 F. Supp. 664, 669 (D. Kan. 1997), §§ 107.3, 107.16, 208.1, 208.2, 208.4, 210.3, 607.......
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...causes, the claimant’s foot condition was an impairment that in fact caused his disability to last more than 12 months. Taylor v. Bowen , 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1986). Sixth Circuit The Commissioner must first determine whether the claimant’s conditions are disabling in the absence o......
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • May 5, 2015
    ...causes, the claimant’s foot condition was an impairment that in fact caused his disability to last more than 12 months. Taylor v. Bowen , 782 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1986). Sixth Circuit The Commissioner must first determine whether the claimant’s conditions are disabling in the absence o......
  • 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