Thorne v. Schweiker

Decision Date07 December 1982
Docket NumberNo. 82-1112,82-1112
PartiesWilma I. THORNE, Appellant, v. Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Robert Van Norman, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Richard H. Hoch, Hoch & Steinheider, Nebraska City, Neb., for appellant.

Before BRIGHT, JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Wilma I. Thorne appeals from an order of the district court 1 sustaining the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying her application for social security disability benefits. Appellant has osteoarthritis of the spine, 2 and there appears to be no disagreement that her current condition renders her disabled. The crucial issue, however, is whether appellant was disabled as of June 30, 1975, the last date on which she met the special earnings requirements of the Social Security Act. We affirm the decision of the district court.

Appellant's case has been before this court previously. On the first appeal, the court remanded the case so that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) could more fully develop the evidence of appellant's disability as of 1975, and in particular so that the ALJ could hear the views of appellant's treating physician on this issue. See: Thorne v. Califano, 607 F.2d 218 (8th Cir.1979).

Appellant was employed as a nurse's aide until May 1975, when she quit her job. Appellant contends that she was forced to stop working because of severe and disabling back pain caused by her spinal osteoarthritis. At the time appellant stopped working she was 55 years old. She has only a tenth grade education, and has spent most of her working life as either a nurse's aide or a production line worker at a food plant.

To establish that she was disabled as of June 30, 1975, appellant needed to prove that she had (1) a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could be expected to result in death or which had lasted or could be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months; (2) that she was unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity; and (3) that this inability was a result of her impairment. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)(1); Camp v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1325, 1332 (8th Cir.1981). A showing that appellant had a back ailment alone would not support a finding that she was disabled unless the limitations imposed by the back ailment prevented her from engaging in substantial gainful activity. Roberts v. Schweiker, 682 F.2d 743, 744 (8th Cir.1982).

On remand, the ALJ heard testimony from appellant's treating physician, Dr. Rodney Koerber, who stated that appellant was suffering from arthritis in 1977. He had no objective evidence of appellant's having had trouble with her back before that time, although he felt she could have had back problems at the time she quit working. He could not testify with certainty that her condition was disabling in 1975. 3

Because of the lack of objective medical evidence regarding appellant's condition in 1975, the ALJ had to rely primarily on the testimony of appellant herself. The ALJ was obligated to give serious consideration to appellant's testimony about the severity of her pain even though it was not fully corroborated by objective examination. Brand v. Secretary of HEW, 623 F.2d 523, 525-26 (8th Cir.1980). It is clear from the record that the ALJ did so consider appellant's testimony, but found it not credible for several reasons.

Appellant contended that her arthritis pain was so severe that her husband had to drive her to and from work during the last several months she was employed. She also testified, however, that once she arrived at work she performed fairly strenuous activities, sometimes including lifting patients. Appellant further testified that after she quit her job she continued to do two or three hours of housework daily and still pursued her gardening. In addition, appellant did not seriously seek medical help for her back pain until...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Michelle W. v. Kijakazi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • 6 juin 2022
    ...... existence of some pain does not constitute a disability if it. does not prevent Plaintiff from working”) (citing. Thorne v. Schweiker , 694 F.2d 170, 171 (8th Cir. 1982)); see also Fair v. Bowen , 885 F.2d 597, 603. (9th Cir. 1989) (the social security ......
  • Daniel S. v. Kijakazi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • 15 août 2022
    ...... not constitute a disability if it does not prevent Plaintiff. from working”) (citing Thorne v. Schweiker ,. 694 F.2d 170, 171 (8th Cir. 1982)); see also Fair v. Bowen , 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) (the social. ......
  • Edward R. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • 28 septembre 2022
    ...... some pain does not constitute a disability if it does not. prevent Plaintiff from working.”) (citing Thorne v. Schweiker , 694 F.2d 170, 171 (8th Cir. 1982)); see. also Fair v. Bowen , 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). (social security ......
  • Avila v. Astrue, CV 11-07670-VBK
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 25 juillet 2012
    ...existence of some pain does not constitute a disability, if the claimant is not thereby prevented from working. See, Thorn v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 170, 171 (8th Cir. 1982). In addition, weak objective support for claims of subjective pain can undermine such testimony or claims of disabling p......
  • 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