Teter v. Heckler
| Decision Date | 25 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2596,84-2596 |
| Citation | 775 F.2d 1104 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,380 Tim C. TETER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
James G. Chakeres, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff-appellant.
William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., Ronald F. Ross, Asst. U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, N.M., Gayla Fuller, Regional Atty., Thomas Stanton, and Karen J. Behner, Asst. Regional Attys., U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judges.
In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.
Tim C. Teter brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) (1982) after his application for Social Security disability benefits was denied. The district court affirmed the administrative decision and Teter appealed. We reverse.
Teter claims he became disabled on April 21, 1981, as a result of a back injury and alcoholism. He first injured his back in 1971 and underwent a laminectomy. Following this surgery, he received Social Security benefits from 1972 to 1976, when he resumed employment. Teter again developed back trouble in 1976, after which he was unemployed for two years. His back improved and he again returned to work until the injury in 1981. Teter testified that he is no longer able to work due to debilitating pain, and that he sometimes resorts to alcohol for relief.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Teter suffered from a severe impairment. The ALJ also determined, however, that Teter's allegation of disabling pain was not credible and that Teter therefore retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of sedentary work. The ALJ then applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines found at 20 C.F.R., Subpt. P., App. 2 (1985) (the grids), and found that Teter was not disabled. The district court concluded that the ALJ's evaluation of Teter's pain was supported by substantial evidence. Although the ALJ had not addressed the issue, the court also alluded to evidence that surgery could improve Teter's condition, and noted that an impairment may not form the basis for a finding of disability if it is amenable to corrective treatment. The court apparently concluded that Teter's failure to undergo surgery constituted an alternative ground for upholding the ALJ's decision. The Secretary pursues this argument on appeal, and also asserts that the ALJ's pain determination is supported by substantial evidence.
We have recently discussed the circumstances in which the Secretary can properly resort to the grids to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See Turner v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 326, 328-29 (10th Cir.1985); Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577, 579-80 (10th Cir.1984). In those cases we pointed out that "the grids may not be applied conclusively in a given case unless the claimant's characteristics precisely match the criteria of a particular rule." Turner, 754 F.2d at 328; Channel, 747 F.2d at 579. In establishing RFC categories, the grids consider only impairments resulting in exertional limitations; they cannot be used when a nonexertional impairment, such as pain, limits a claimant's ability to perform the full range of work in a particular RFC. Turner, 754 F.2d at 331; Channel, 747 F.2d at 580-81.
In this case the ALJ applied the grids after rejecting as not credible Teter's allegation of disabling pain and finding that he retained the RFC to perform a full range of sedentary work. This finding will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. "Evidence is substantial if it is more than a mere scintilla, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Fulton v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1052, 1055 (10th Cir.1985) (citing Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 414 (10th Cir.1983)). Although the ALJ relied on reports from three physicians in making his determination, in so doing he read the reports selectively. Moreover, the ALJ failed to acknowledge that these reports clearly show Teter's pain to have both physical and psychological components. Complaints of pain cannot be dismissed as incredible merely because they stem in part from a psychological abnormality, so long as the abnormality is shown by "medical signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques...." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(5)(A) (1985 Supp.).
The ALJ based his findings on the reports of Doctors Crowell, Nayak, and Nelson. The ALJ noted that Dr. Crowell, an orthopedic surgeon, reported that Teter subjectively amplified his symptoms. However, Dr. Crowell recommended that Teter be given a psychiatric evaluation at a formal pain clinic, and he concluded that Teter would not recover from his illness, with or without surgery. Dr. Nayak, who specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation, examined Teter at the Secretary's request. The ALJ focused on Dr. Nayak's statement that Teter severely exaggerated his symptoms. However, Dr. Nayak concluded that this exaggeration was the result of a "[s]evere underlying emotional disorder with severe pain behavior," and stated that Teter "has severe emotional problems related to his back pain, and ... unless this is treated, that he is functionally impaired and will be unable to do any kind of activity." Rec., vol. II, at 185-86 (emphasis added). Dr. Nayak felt Teter's illness had an hysterical component, and he too recommended psychiatric counseling and treatment at a pain center.
The ALJ also quoted from the report of Dr. Nelson, a psychiatrist who examined Teter at the Secretary's request. Dr. Nelson stated that Teter's pain was subjective rather than objective, and that Teter was emotionally able to withstand the pressure of daily work. Dr. Nelson diagnosed Teter's problem as atypical somatiform disorder. 1 He concluded that Teter presented "a complicated case in which chronic pain seems to be causing psychological disturbance." Id. at 204. Dr. Nelson recommended that Teter "be tried on a variety of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety agents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheely v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Social Services
...(4th Cir.1983); Haynes v. Heckler, 716 F.2d 483 (8th Cir.1983); Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1985); Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1105 (10th Cir.1985). DHSS cites no case which supports this mechanical application of the "grid." A discretionary decision will not be sustai......
-
Cole v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
...limitations. Bolton v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 536 (8th Cir.1987) (pain and dizziness are nonexertional limitations); Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1105 (10th Cir.1985) (pain is a nonexertional limitation); Hammond v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (pain is a nonexertiona......
-
Ellis v. Berryhill
...consider a claimant's allegation that he has not sought treatment or used medications because of lack of finances"); Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 1985) (inability to afford surgery does not constitute an unjustified refusal and does not preclude recovery of disability be......
-
Stewart v. Astrue
...consider a claimant's allegation that he has not sought treatment or used medications because of lack of finances"); Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir.1985) (inability to afford surgery does not constitute an unjustified refusal and does not preclude recovery of disability ben......
-
Issue Topics
...to surgery, he subsequently became receptive, but by the time of the hearing could not afford the cost of the surgery. Teter v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 1985). Thus, the Tenth Circuit held that the claimant’s failure to undergo surgery did not constitute an unjustified refus......
-
Issue topics
...to surgery, he subsequently became receptive, but by the time of the hearing could not afford the cost of the surgery. Teter v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1104, 1107 (10 th Cir. 1985). Thus, the Tenth Circuit held that the claimant’s failure to undergo surgery did not constitute an unjustified refu......
-
Table of Cases
...203.16, 205.4, 205.5 Tessitore v. Apfel , No. 97-2925, 1998 WL 563592 (E.D. La. Sept. 3, 1998), §§ 1104.5, 1602.2 Teter v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1104, 1106, 1107 (10th Cir. 1985), §§ 205.16, 208.1, 1208.5 Tetreault v. Apfel , 996 F. Supp. 1227, 1229 (M.D. Fla. 1998), § 306 Teverbaugh v. Comm’r......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...his overall evaluation of the claimant’s credibility. Qualls v. Apfel , 206 F.3d 1368, 1373 (10 th Cir. 2000), citing Teter v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1104, 1106 (10 th Cir. 1985); SSR 96-7p. The court concluded that the ALJ properly considered his personal observations as part of his overall cr......