Thomas v. Sullivan

Decision Date06 June 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-2171,88-2171
Citation876 F.2d 666
Parties, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 14678A Lillian THOMAS, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., * Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Anthony W. Bartels, Jonesboro, Ark., for appellant.

Joyce Shatteen, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Lillian Thomas appeals from the judgment of the District Court affirming the decision of the Secretary denying her claim for disability benefits. Because the denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse.

I.

At the time of this appeal, Lillian Thomas was a thirty-nine year-old black woman with a tenth-grade education. She lived with her two teen-age sons in a two-bedroom HUD-supported apartment. The family survived on food stamps, AFDC, and an occasional $50.00 a month in child support. Thomas is married, but her husband abandoned the family more than ten years ago, and she is unsure of his whereabouts. Thomas also has a grown daughter, who no longer lives at home. Last employed in the late 1960s, when she worked as a hotel maid, and then for six months as a nursing-home aide, Thomas quit working because her feet and legs swelled, making it painful for her to stand, Tr. 58, and because her back hurt because of kidney problems, Tr. 59.

Thomas has numerous physical and mental ailments. She suffers from hypertension, which is controlled by medication, and adult-onset diabetes, which is not well-regulated. She complains of swelling in her legs and feet, which makes walking more than a block, standing more than five to ten minutes, and sitting more than 30 minutes painful. Tr. 70. Thomas has been massively obese all of her adult life, Tr. 340, but claims she cannot diet because she cannot afford to buy the right foods. Tr. 69. She also complains of kidney problems which manifest themselves in back pain and frequent urination. Tr. 59, 68, 184.

Thomas has been visiting mental-health clinics in her area since 1972 for treatment of "nerves." Her diagnosis in the early 1970s was depressive reaction in a hysterical personality. Tr. 173. However, there was a suspicion at that time that she was clinic-shopping in search of a doctor who would give her tranquilizers. Tr. 176. She was still going to mental-health clinics in the early 1980s, when she was diagnosed as having obsessive thoughts and a sleep disturbance. Tr. 163. In 1984, Sinequan, an anti-anxiety and anti-depression drug, was prescribed for her and she was labeled as suffering from a dysthymic, or mood, disorder. Tr. 181. In August of 1985, she was given a variety of personality and intelligence tests, which revealed she had an IQ of 71 and a fifth-grade reading ability. Tr. 256. Her diagnosis was modified to borderline intellectual functioning, dysthymic disorder, and schizotypal personality disorder. 1

In October of 1985, Thomas was voluntarily admitted into the hospital overnight when she told a therapist that "something tells me to kill my kids." Tr. 269. Thomas was given a prescription for Mellaril, an anti-psychotic drug, and atypical psychosis was added to her diagnoses. Id. A treatment program was devised for Thomas which included group therapy and anti-psychotic medication. The medication has controlled her psychotic symptoms. Tr. 271, 280. However, Thomas's attendance at therapy has been sporadic, e.g., Tr. 281, 287, 321-28, and her participation when present has been minimal. Tr. 279, 282, 320. Social workers have been sent to her home to follow up on her non-attendance. Tr. 330. Thomas explains that she does not attend therapy when she doesn't feel well physically, which is most of the time. Id.

The most recent medical evaluation of Thomas is a January 19, 1987 letter from Dr. Ashley, an internist. Tr. 340. He reports that she had been under treatment at a mental-health clinic for two or three years, and had attempted suicide by threatening to shoot herself six months prior. Id. He gives the clinic's diagnosis as mental retardation, depression, borderline intellectual functioning, and schizoid personality. 2 Dr. Ashley notes that Thomas was still taking Mellaril, as well as high blood pressure and diabetes medication. He confirms that Thomas has "bladder trouble," caused by chronic cystitis. Though conceding that "[i]t is difficult to find a single disabling disability here in as much as her diabetes is without complication [, and h]er hypertension is without serious complications and is treatable," Dr. Ashley nonetheless concludes that Thomas is "totally disabled in her present situation." Tr. 341.

Thomas filed for benefits in 1984. After a hearing before an ALJ, her claim was denied in 1985. She requested and received a supplemental hearing in 1986, and her claim was again denied. At her first hearing, Thomas testified that during the day she did the housework and cooking with help from her sons, watched TV, and slept. Tr. 66-67. She told the ALJ that she attended church twice a week. Tr. 67. Thomas stated that she had never learned to drive and so had no driver's license. If she needed to go to the doctor, she had to pay someone to take her. Tr. 74-75. At the second hearing, Thomas testified that she attended church only once a week, and no longer cleaned her house because her feet swelled too much. Thomas said her sister now came over to cook, wash dishes, and do the laundry for her. Tr. 87. She added that she had many friends, and spent much time talking to them on the phone. Tr. 89.

In explaining his decision to deny benefits, the ALJ pointed to Thomas's daily activities, her youth, and her lack of serious physical restrictions. Specifically, the ALJ stated that Thomas "maintains a wide range of social contacts and has not exhibited any reclusive behavior" and that "she is able to live alone" despite a "longstanding personality disorder." Tr. 17. He also noted what he perceived as a contradiction between her testimony at the hearing and her responses on a social-security questionnaire: Thomas testified that her sister did most of the cooking, while on the questionnaire she indicated that she did the cooking. Tr. 206. The District Court affirmed the ALJ's decision, but observed that "it might reach a different result ... if it were trying this case de novo, chiefly because of the Secretary's contention that [Thomas's] ability to do some household work, e.g., cooking for one hour per day, demonstrated her ability to work." Thomas v. Bowen, No. J-C-87-83, slip op. at 5 (E.D.Ark. July 20, 1988). The Court cautioned the Secretary against undue reliance on such evidence in the future. Id.

II.

In reviewing the Secretary's decision to deny disability benefits, we look to see whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. McMillian v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir.1983). This review is more than a rubber stamp for the Secretary's decision, and is more than a search for the existence of substantial evidence supporting his decision. Id. Indeed, we must take into account evidence in the record which fairly detracts from his decision. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 464, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). After reviewing the Secretary's decision under this standard, we must reverse.

As noted earlier, the ALJ based his decision on the fact that Thomas lived alone, caring for herself and her children, despite her mental illness. He put much weight on her statements on a social-security questionnaire, where she admitted she cooked and cleaned, shopped for groceries, did the laundry, visited with friends, attended church, and went fishing. He discounted her later testimony that she no longer performed these tasks, or performed them only with help from her sister or sons. We disagree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
380 cases
  • Walton v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • October 6, 2009
    ...of substantial services with reasonable regularity either in [a] competitive [environment] or self-employment." Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1989) (internal citations omitted). For example, "[t]he ability to do light housework with assistance, attend church, or visit with ......
  • MORAINE v. Social Sec. Admin., Civil No. 08-5982 (JRT/RLE).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • March 8, 2010
    ...a Plaintiffs claim was denied. See, Loving v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16 F.3d 967, 969 (8th Cir.1994); Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1989). Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla; it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might acce......
  • Dornack v. Apfel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • February 16, 1999
    ...claim was granted or denied. See, Loving v. Department of Health and Human Services, 16 F.3d 967, 969 (8th Cir.1994); Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1989). Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla; it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accep......
  • Orr v. Chater, C 96-3022-MWB.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 18, 1997
    ...a `rubber stamp' of the [Commissioner]'s action." Cooper v. Secretary, 919 F.2d 1317, 1320 (8th Cir.1990) (citing Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir.1989)). In cases where the Commissioner's position is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, the court mu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Case survey
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...denying benefits. The court noted that an IQ score of 84 represented borderline intellectual functioning. Id., citing Thomas v. Sullivan , 876 F.2d 666, 668 n.1 (8th Cir. 1989). Further, this score was a “‘significant nonexertional impairment that needed to be considered by the VE.’” Id. , ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...17, 1998), § 312.13 Thomas v. Shalala , 46 F.3d 1145 (Table), No. 93-16119 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 1995)(unpub.), § 1209.3 Thomas v. Sullivan , 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 1989), §§ 107.16, 204.8, 312.12 Thomas v. Sullivan , 928 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir. 1991), 8th-08, §§ 509.3, 606.4 Thomas v. We......
  • Assessment of disability issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Contents
    • August 2, 2014
    ...to prove they are bedridden to be found disabled.” Davis v. Callahan , 985 F. Supp. 907, 912 (S.D. Iowa 1997), citing Thomas v. Sullivan , 876 F.2d 666, 669 (8 th Cir. 1989). A Minnesota district court did not find that the believability of a claimant suffering from CFS should be questioned......
  • Specific impairments issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...demonstrating “borderline intellectual functioning.” Id. , citing Holz v. Apfel , 191 F.3d 945, 947 (8 th Cir. 1999); Thomas v. Sullivan , 876 F.2d 666, 558 n.1 (8 th Cir. 1989). The issue presented in Muncy was whether the ALJ correctly disregarded IQ scores from a one-time examination by ......
  • 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