Walker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Decision Date07 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-2396,91-2396
Citation980 F.2d 1066
Parties, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 17214A John F. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Ronald D. Honig (argued and briefed), Weisberg & Walkon, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.

Carole Kohn (argued and briefed), Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Region V, Chicago, Ill Peter A. Caplan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee.

Before: MARTIN and SILER, Circuit Judges; and DOWD, District Judge. *

DOWD, District Judge.

John Walker (hereafter "Walker") appeals from the denial of disability insurance benefits contending that the Administrative Law Judge (hereafter "ALJ") failed to give due deference to the opinions of various treating physicians. Walker also argues that the ALJ failed to consider all of Walker's functional limitations in reaching his decision; specifically, the ALJ did not consider Walker's limitations in the mental residual functional capacity.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Walker was born on February 24, 1946 and was 44 years old on the date the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereafter "Secretary") rendered his decision. Walker had received a GED and previously worked as a bore operator, assembly worker, and press operator in a General Motors factory. Walker discontinued work activity in January, 1987, due to pain resulting from a back injury in December, 1986, as well as due to a previously experienced condition of depression and anxiety.

He received evaluation, medical treatment, and physical therapy for his back injury at the Pain Management Clinic of the University of Michigan Medical Center in July, 1987. Two neurosurgeons at the Pain Management Clinic, Dr. James C. Chen and Dr. Julian T. Hoff, reported that CT scans, myelogram and sensory and motion examinations of Walker's back were negative, but that Walker's range of motion was limited and that he suffered from myofascial pain syndrome. Walker was then referred to the Michigan Medical Center Coordinated Chronic Pain Program (hereafter "Pain Program") for follow-up therapy.

Doctors at the Pain Program examined and evaluated Walker on July 29, 1987, and the neurological examination revealed no motor, sensory, or reflex deficits. The doctors diagnosed a "moderately severe myofascial pain syndrome of his lower back musculature" and recommended medication and physical therapy consisting of stretching exercises and icing.

The doctors at the Pain Program reported improvement in Walker's condition under their care from August 11, 1987, through December 16, 1988. In September, 1987, his pain was said to be less intense, and Walker, himself, noted that he was doing better and had more endurance but complained that he continued to have episodes of more severe pain. In February, 1988, Walker's physicians at the Pain Program reported that his pain was "fairly well controlled." By June, 1988, Walker still complained of constant pain, but was able to sit for a two hour period with one short break after approximately one hour; could tolerate standing (with frequent weight shifting, bending and stretching) for two hours; and could walk three quarters of a mile.

Dr. Robert Rogers, an orthopedist, examined Walker at the request of the doctors at the Pain Program and reported that Walker suffered from low back syndrome but also found that there was no evidence of acute distress. Dr. Rogers noted that Walker's major medical problem was his depression. It is undisputed that Walker suffered from depression prior to his back injury.

On October 19, 1988, Walker applied for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 416(i) and § 423). The application was denied. Following an unfavorable reconsideration determination, Walker filed a timely request for a hearing. A hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge John W. Hoffman on January 8, 1990, at which time testimony was received from Walker and from Dr. Charles Oliver (hereafter "Dr Oliver"), the ALJ's vocational expert. The ALJ issued a decision on March 29, 1990 denying the claim for benefits. A request for Appeals Council Review was filed May 25, 1990. On January 24, 1991, the Appeals Council denied review of the claim.

A complaint was then filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and was referred to a Magistrate-Judge. The district court issued an order adopting the Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and denying Walker's motion for the same. Walker then filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court for review.

THE ALJ's DECISION

The ALJ had the benefit of numerous expert medical opinions to assist him in rendering a decision. Dr. T.W. Park, Walker's treating psychiatrist, reported that Walker was very tense, depressed and unhappy. Dr. Park noted in his report that Walker expressed feelings of uselessness and worthlessness, and entertained thoughts of suicide. It was noted that Walker has few friends, and is not able to make friends without great difficulty. Formal psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Park also found memory impairment.

Further, based upon an August 14, 1989 evaluation of Walker, Dr. Park concluded that Walker would have no useful ability to follow work rules, deal with the public, interact with supervisors, cope with work stress, or relate predictably in social situations. A serious limitation was foreseen in Walker's ability to relate to co-workers; use judgment; maintain attention and concentration; understand, remember and carry out complex, and detailed, or simple job instructions; behave in an emotionally stable manner; or demonstrate reliability. The treating psychiatrist indicated that, overall, the prognosis was poor. It was Dr. Park's opinion that Walker remains totally disabled from his occupational duties due to a major depressive disorder.

Dr. Nikhil Vora, a consulting psychiatrist, evaluated Walker on January 6, 1989. Dr. Vora, substantially corroborating Dr. Park's opinion, reported that Walker had experienced a significant loss of self-esteem, psychomotor retardation, and poor insight and memory. Dr. Vora also agreed with Dr. Park's laundry list of tasks that were common to the work place, such as following orders and getting along with co-workers, that Walker could no longer perform.

In reaching his opinion, Dr. Vora used the criteria set out by the American Psychiatric Association, and reported a poor level of functioning on Axis V. According to Dr. Vora, poor characterization in Axis V is indicative of a marked impairment in either social relations or occupational functions, or a moderate impairment in both.

Walker's file was also examined by two State Agency Review Psychiatrists. Both State Agency Review Psychiatrists found that Walker had a moderate restriction of activities of daily living; moderate difficulties in maintaining social functioning; and would often have deficiencies in concentration, persistence or pace resulting in failure to complete tasks in a timely manner. The State's doctors also found a moderate limitation in Walker's ability to maintain attention for extended periods; perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary tolerances; and complete a normal work day and work week without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods.

Dr. Charles Oliver testified at the hearing as the ALJ's vocational expert. During the hearing, the ALJ posed a two part hypothetical question to Dr. Oliver using many of the facts contained in the other experts' reports. The first part of the hypothetical involved Walker's physical traits, such as age, occupation, and lower back pain. Based upon only those facts, Dr. Oliver concluded that the fictitious subject would only be able to return to work as a press operator because it involved moderate effort and lifting. Such an individual could not return to operating a bore, as that often required heavy lifting.

The ALJ then posed the second part of the hypothetical, adding findings from the report prepared by Dr. Park including good to fair ratings in the area of judgment, following instructions, and behaving in an emotionally stable manner; and poor ratings in the area of coping with work related stress, interacting with management and co-workers, and relating predictably in social situations. Adding these facts to the original hypothetical, Dr. Oliver opined that the individual in question was not employable in any capacity.

Walker was the only other witness to testify before the ALJ. He testified that it was the combination of back pain and depression that caused him to seek medical leave on January 13, 1987. He further testified that on a good day, when he is feeling well, he will spend one to two hours working on his computer, he will sometimes drive to a friend's house to visit, he will fix himself a bowl of cereal for lunch, and his girlfriend will fix his dinner. When he is not feeling well, however, he testified that he spends 90% of his day "staring at the walls." (p. 64). He also indicated that he is usually in a great deal of pain, and is unable to do any housework. (p. 64). 1

As part of his decision, the ALJ found that Walker suffered from "moderately severe myofascial pain syndrome." The ALJ, however, ruled against Walker finding that he was not disabled as he could return to his former work as a press operator. The ALJ explained that while being a bore operator involved heavy lifting and a great deal of exertion, his former job required only moderate exertion which he believed Walker could still do.

The ALJ indicated that he did not believe he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
210 cases
  • Feild v. Apfel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • 31 Diciembre 1998
    ...and as a result, the medical opinion of the treating physician is given substantial deference. Walker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir.1992). Generally, the Commissioner gives more weight to opinions from treating sources, since these sources are likel......
  • Chavis v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 9 Julio 2012
    ...on the ultimate issue of disability. Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security, 375 F.3d at 390; Walker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992); Duncan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986); Harris v. Heckler, 756 F......
  • Jester v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 10 Febrero 2014
    ...on the ultimate issue of disability. Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security, 375 F.3d at 390; Walker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992); Duncan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986); Harris v. Heckler, 756 F......
  • Baehr v. Astrue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 24 Septiembre 2012
    ...on the ultimate issue of disability. Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security, 375 F.3d at 390; Walker v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992); Duncan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 801 F.2d 847, 855 (6th Cir. 1986); Harris v. Heckler, 756 F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Case survey
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...1087 (W.D. Tenn. 1998), citing Cohen v. Sec’y of DHHS , 964 F.2d 524, 528 (6th Cir. 1992); Walker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). (4) In Bankston v. Commissioner of Social Security , 127 F. Supp.2d 820, 824 (E.D. Mich. 200......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 943 F.2d 1257, 1259-60 (10th Cir. 1991), § 102.5 Walker v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992), § 202.2 Walker v. Shalala , 993 F.2d 630, 632 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1993), §§ 203.14, 1203.14 Wallace v. Apfel , No. Civ.A. 9......
  • Assessment of disability issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Contents
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...1087 (W.D. Tenn. 1998), citing Cohen v. Sec’y of DHHS , 964 F.2d 524, 528 (6 th Cir. 1992); Walker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6 th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). (4) In Bankston v. Commissioner of Social Security , 127 F. Supp.2d 820, 824 (E.D. Mich. 2......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • 3 Agosto 2014
    ...v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 943 F.2d 1257, 1259-60 (10th Cir. 1991), § 102.5 Walker v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992), § 202.2 Walker v. Shalala , 993 F.2d 630, 632 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1993), §§ 203.14, 1203.14 Wallace v. Apfel , No. Civ.A. 9......

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