Thompson v. Schweiker

Decision Date11 January 1982
Docket NumberNo. 79-3759,79-3759
Citation665 F.2d 936
PartiesLloyd THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Paul Ashby, Long Beach, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jerry J. Bassett, Asst. Regional Atty., San Francisco, Cal., argued, for defendant-appellee; Michael Wolfson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before ALARCON and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, * District Judge.

SOLOMON, District Judge:

Lloyd Thompson, appellant, filed an action in the district court to review his claim for disability benefits and for supplemental security income (SSI), both of which had been denied by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). 1 The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate, to whom it had referred appellant's claims, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. Thompson appeals.

Thompson, now 52, worked primarily as a sheet metal worker and bottler until 1967, after which he has not lived nor worked outside a sheltered environment. From July, 1967 until 1975, he lived in a residential ward of Wadsworth Veterans' Hospital. While there he was treated for epilepsy, alcoholism and respiratory disease and he suffered fractures of the knee and leg in accidents at the hospital.

He suffered many grand mal and even more petit mal epileptic seizures. In fact, from July 1967 to December 1971, he suffered from two to twenty petit mal seizures every other week and from one to four grand mal seizures every few months. For at least two years thereafter, the number of seizures increased but later decreased substantially as a result of increased medication.

Beginning in 1967 and continuing for at least ten years, Thompson was frequently diagnosed and treated for chronic alcoholism. The physicians and other members of the hospital staff concluded that alcohol abuse often preceded his epileptic seizures, and caused his accidents. Nevertheless, Thompson repeatedly denied he used alcohol. On one occasion he stated that he was not drinking whiskey and that he was only drinking ten bottles of beer a day.

Thompson was released from his duties as a receptionist because of his drinking and he was transferred from the Veterans' Hospital to an alcoholic rehabilitation center where it was reported that he had no work tolerance. His treatment for alcoholism was a failure.

Thompson suffers from shortness of breath and chronic bronchitis, which at times become acute. A spirometric test showed that Thompson's lung capacity was less than one half of normal.

X-Ray reports revealed degenerative osteoarthritis of the cervical spine with a compression fracture of C7.

While at the Veterans' Hospital, he worked part-time for short periods as a packer assembler, instrument cleaner and receptionist clerk. The only description in the record of the work that he performed related to his job as a receptionist at the Veterans' Hospital. In that job he answered a few telephone calls a day but even that work was frequently interrupted-by a broken knee (1970), by an alcohol treatment program (1971), by a broken tibia and fibula (1973) and permanently by his transfer to an alcohol rehabilitation center (1975). In 1976, Thompson was transferred to a convalescent hospital and he now lives in a retirement home.

Thompson, without being represented by a lawyer or anyone else, applied for disability benefits in 1970, 1972 and 1975. Each application was denied without a hearing because the agency found Thompson "could still do entry level sedentary work."

In 1976, Thompson applied for SSI benefits. In 1977, he again applied for disability benefits. In August, 1977, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held one hearing on both claims.

When the hearing opened, the ALJ noted that Thompson had been informed by written notice of his right to be represented by an attorney. Since Thompson was at the hearing alone, the ALJ assumed that Thompson wished to proceed by himself. Thompson, after saying, "Well, I really don't have much more information than what's already here," said he wished to proceed.

The ALJ asked Thompson about his age, weight, and present address. He then asked Thompson a series of leading questions, many of which were adversarial in nature. Some of the answers were not properly recorded, and a few were unintelligible. Nevertheless, it appears that Thompson testified that at the hospital he and two others engaged in work therapy for about an hour a day as a receptionist for a doctor, and sat around and smoked for about six or seven hours a day. They received about three sick calls a week and Thompson could type about five or ten words a minute. He also did some rehabilitation work as a packer and instrument cleaner, but there was no testimony on the nature or duration of this work. He apparently also worked as a receptionist for a social worker at the hospital where he answered three or four telephone calls a day.

Thompson testified that he was short of breath, but he thought that he could walk two blocks, and that he might be able to sit at a desk and assemble things if he didn't have seizures. He was getting seizures less often because he was receiving the right medication. He was willing to work, but no one would hire him if they found out that he had seizures, and that he was undergoing treatment.

The ALJ asked no questions about Thompson's alcoholism, about the frequency and severity of his epileptic seizures, or its causes and effects upon him; nor did the ALJ ask about Thompson's back condition caused by degenerative osteoarthritis of the cervical spine, about the causes of his shortness of breath, or about the spirometric test which showed his lung capacity was less than half of normal. The ALJ did not ask about the combined effects of these impairments.

A physician under contract with the S.S.A. as a medical expert asked Thompson a few more questions, and stated that he had reviewed the medical record. He then testified that Thompson had idiopathic epilepsy, obstructive lung disease or emphysema and left knee surgery. He stated that these were ongoing impairments during the period in question, and that these conditions, according to the documents, were moderate and at times acute and severe. When the ALJ asked whether Thompson could spend eight hours a day at a desk using his hands and arms, the medical expert stated, "according to his testimony he could do that." On the basis of Thompson's testimony that he could walk two blocks before becoming short of breath, the expert noted that the emphysema has probably worsened. He also testified that Thompson should not work in high places or near moving machinery, and should not descend stairs without a handrail. However, he thought that Thompson could alternately sit and stand eight hours a day.

The ALJ's decision summarized this testimony, and noted without comment that the doctor who had been treating Thompson believed he was not eligible to return to work because of his seizures. The findings stated that Thompson's epilepsy had improved since 1975 and that he has moderate obstructive lung disease. The ALJ concluded that these impairments do not constitute a "disability" as defined by the Social Security Act, and that Thompson was not entitled to Supplemental Security Income disability benefits.

The SSI Claim

The claimant has the burden to establish a prima facie case showing an inability to engage in previous occupations. The burden then shifts to the Secretary to show that other substantial work, for which the claimant is qualified, exists in the national economy. Hall v. Secretary of HEW, 602 F.2d 1372, 1375 (9th Cir. 1979); Cox v. Califano, 587 F.2d 988, 990 (9th Cir. 1978).

The ALJ's findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Johnson v. Harris, 625 F.2d 311, 312 (9th Cir. 1980). On review, the court considers the record as a whole, not just the evidence supporting the decision of the ALJ. Walker v. Matthews, 546 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1976).

We hold that the ALJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the ALJ's failure to pursue relevant avenues of inquiry, or to assist the claimant, who appeared pro se, deprived Thompson of his right to an impartial decision based upon an adequate record.

Thompson's petit mal attacks were recurrent and unpredictable. His epilepsy is disabling. See Blevin v. Fleming, 180 F.Supp. 287, 293 (W.D.Ark.1960). His extended hospitalization was primarily caused by epilepsy. The evidence indicates that he had no chance of obtaining gainful employment, including sedentary work, as long as there was a likelihood that one of the seizures might occur. See Hammonds v. Celebrezze, 260 F.Supp. 992, 995 (N.D.Ala.1965).

Thompson was continuously hospitalized for approximately nine years-from 1967 through 1976. The record shows that he broke his knee in 1967, completed an alcoholic program in 1971, broke his tibia and fibula in 1973, and was put on 40 days restriction in 1974 due to alcoholism. He was removed as a receptionist because of his drinking. He participated in alcohol rehabilitation programs, but his improvement was minimal. The ALJ found that Thompson's alcoholism was controlled, but the evidence to the contrary was overwhelming. Thompson was disabled by alcoholism within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See Johnson v. Harris, 625 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1980); Griffis v. Weinberger, 509 F.2d 837, 838 (9th Cir. 1975).

Thompson's past performance in sheltered work activity did not establish an ability to engage in gainful employment. An individual who can do limited work is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
194 cases
  • Heckler v. Campbell
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1983
    ...such as physical and mental limitations, that require individualized consideration. See supra, at 462-463. 1. Accord, Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 941 (CA9 1982); Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408, 414 (CA5 1981); Diabo v. Secretary, 627 F.2d 278, 282 (CADC 1980); Cox v. Califano, 587......
  • Finn v. Colvin, CV-13-3098-FVS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Washington
    • December 10, 2014
    ...in a normal, competitive work setting. (Tr. 89.) Furthermore, sheltered work is not the same as competitive work. See Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1982). However, it is not clear that these limitations are supported by other evidence in the record.3 As a result, Dr. Rubin's......
  • U.S. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • November 5, 2004
    ...claim only to discover that the determination was based on allegedly inaccurate and misleading claims. See, e.g., Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 940 (9th Cir.1982) ("We recognize the importance of administrative res judicata [in disability determinations]; however, enforcement of that......
  • Purter v. Heckler
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 18, 1985
    ...to decisions of the Secretary. Rigid enforcement of this precept must be tempered by fairness and equity, e.g., Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 940 (9th Cir.1982), and in accordance with the beneficent purposes of the Act. 6 See Fowler, 596 F.2d at Although the Act impliedly vests powe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Administrative review issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...policy or result in manifest injustice.’” Azami v. Apfel , 24 F. Supp.2d 1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 1998), quoting Thompson v. Schweiker , 665 F.2d 936, 940 (9 th Cir. 1982). Although res judicata had a “forceful application” in the claimant’s case, the court determined that the principles worke......
  • Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook Content
    • May 4, 2020
    ...of justice demand that the case be remanded.” Vidal v. Harris , 637 F.2d 710, 714-15 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 1982) (remanding for further hearings); Cruz v. Schweiker, 645 F.2d 812, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (same); Cox , 587 F.2d at 991 (same)......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...Sept. 10, 2003), 1210.12, 1301.1, 1603.5 Thompson v. Bowen , 850 F.2d 346, 349 (8th Cir. 1988), 8th-09, § 107.12 Thompson v. Schweiker , 665 F.2d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 1982), § 506.1 Thompson v. Shalala , 35 F.3d 572 (Table), No. 92-17071 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 1994), § 1210.5 Thompson v. Sulliva......
  • Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • August 18, 2014
    ...of justice demand that the case be remanded.” Vidal v. Harris , 637 F.2d 710, 714-15 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 1982) (remanding for further hearings); Cruz v. Schweiker, 645 F.2d 812, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (same); Cox , 587 F.2d at 991 (same)......
  • 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