Watson v. Bowen

• Decision Date: 22 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. L 87-6.,L 87-6.
• Citation: 671 F. Supp. 580
• Parties: Jesse WATSON, Plaintiff, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

671 F. Supp. 580

Jesse WATSON, Plaintiff, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

No. L 87-6.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

October 22, 1987.

Ralph L. Robinson, Lafayette, Ind., for plaintiff.

David H. Miller, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The underlying action is for judicial review of a partially adverse final decision of the Secretary which determined that the onset of the plaintiff's disability for purposes of Social Security benefits was March 19, 1986, and not before.

The plaintiff filed his application for benefits on August 9, 1985, alleging that he became disabled on May 27, 1985. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. A hearing was held on March 4, 1986, at which the plaintiff was represented by counsel. The plaintiff's daughter and a medical advisor hired by the administration also testified. In a decision dated July 25, 1986, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the plaintiff had been under a disability since March 19, 1986, but that prior thereto he had a residual functional capacity for light work. This decision became the final decision of the Secretary by affirmance of the Appeals Council on November 25, 1986. The plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on January 21, 1987. On July 30th and 31st the plaintiff and the defendant respectively filed motions for summary judgment, with each motion support by a memorandum. The matter, is therefore, ripe for ruling.

In his July 25th decision, the ALJ made the following findings:

1. The claimant met the disability insured status requirements of the Act on May 27, 1985, the date the claimant stated he became unable to work, and continues to meet them through the date of this decision.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 27, 1985.

3. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant has arteriosclerotic heart disease with angina.

4. Prior to March 19, 1986, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform light work (20 CFR 404.1545, 404.1567, 416.945 and 416.967).

5. The claimant is fifty years old, which is defined as a person closely approaching advanced age (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

6. The claimant has an eighth grade education (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

7. In view of the claimant's age and residual functional capacity, the issue of transferability of work skills is not material.

8. Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.10, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, direct a conclusion that the claimant considering his residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience, was not disabled prior to March 19, 1986.

9. Since March 19, 1986, but not prior thereto, the severity of the claimant's impairment has met the requirements of Section 4.04(B)(7)(b), Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 (20 CFR 404.1525 and 416.925).

10. Although there is a possibility that surgery may restore the claimant's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity, Social Security Ruling 82-52 indicates that this does not preclude a finding of disability because the claimant is disabled and is expected to be disabled for the next 12 months.

11. The claimant has been under a "disability," as defined in the Social Security Act, since March 19, 1986, but not prior thereto (20 CFR 404.1520(d), (e) and (f), and 416.920(d), (e) and (f).

Findings numbered 4, 8, 9, and 11 are in dispute, insofar as they relate to finding an onset date of March 19th, and a capacity for light work prior to that date.

I.

The basic issue before the court is whether substantial evidence supports the Secretary's final decision, in this case that of the ALJ. This determination is to be made viewing the record as a whole. Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 786 (7th Cir.1982); Schmoll v. Harris, 636 F.2d 1146, 1149-50 (7th Cir.1980); Carver v. Harris, 634 F.2d 363, 364 (7th Cir.1980). "Substantial evidence means `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Id.; Allen v. Weinberger, 552 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1977) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)). The required evidence has been described as "more than a scintilla", Richardson at 401, 91 S.Ct. at 1427, but it may be "something less than the weight of the evidence." Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 83 (7th Cir.1986).

The court's review is limited to determining whether the ALJ considered all relevant evidence, whether his resolution of conflicting factual matters was support supported by substantial evidence, and whether the Secretary followed the law in reaching its conclusions. See Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82-83 (7th Cir.1986); Zalewski v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 160, 161-63 (7th Cir.1985); see also Cullotta v. Bowen, 662 F.Supp. 1161 (N.D.Ill.1987). The Court may not decide facts anew, reweigh evidence or substitute its own judgment. Burnett v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 731, 734 (7th Cir.1987); Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir.1986); Williams v. Bowen, 663 F.Supp. 45, 48 (N.D.Ind.1987). If the Secretary's findings are supported by substantial evidence the court must affirm unless there has been an error of law. Burnett at 734; Waite v. Bowen, 819 F.2d 1356, 1360 (7th Cir.1987).

Often critical in resolving the issue of substantial evidence in a Social Security disability case, is a consideration of the manner in which the ALJ addressed and assessed the medical evidence of record. Although the court does not reweigh evidence, there are legal principles and guidelines which the ALJ must follow in his or her assessment of medical evidence. Typically the development of such principles has involved an expectation that, in weighing the evidence, the ALJ will have taken into account such factors as the relationship of the medical expert to the plaintiff, as well as the qualifications and potential biases of the person providing medical evidence.

It has been stated, for example, that an ALJ must weigh all evidence and may not ignore evidence that suggests an opposite conclusion. Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 788 (7th Cir.1982); Garcia v. Califano, 463 F.Supp. 1098, 1105 (N.D.Ill. 1979); Rayborn v. Weinberger, 398 F.Supp. 1303, 1311 (N.D.Ind.1975). This does not mean, of course, that the ALJ must provide a written evaluation of every piece of testimony and submitted evidence, Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir.1985), but he or she must articulate, at some minimum level, significant evidence that is offered to counter the agency's position. Burnett v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 731, 735 (7th Cir.1987). See also, Orlando v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 209, 213 (7th Cir.1985); Look v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir.1985); Zalewski v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 160, 166 (7th Cir.1985); Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221, 1226 (8th Cir.1984); Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605, 609 (7th Cir.1984); Zblewski v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 75 (7th Cir.1984).

The ALJ is additionally required to explain why he or she rejects uncontradicted evidence. Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir.1985); Look v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir.1985). See also Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir.1984); Zblewski v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 75, 78-79 (7th Cir.1984); McNeil v. Califano, 614 F.2d 142, 144-45 (7th Cir.1980). Finally, relevant medical evidence is to be considered, not in isolation, but with reference to the record as a whole. Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir.1984). "There can be no doubt that medical evidence from a time subsequent to a certain period is relevant to a determination of a claimant's condition during that period." Id., citing Stark v. Weinberger, 497 F.2d 1092, 1098 (7th Cir. 1974).

Considerable case law has developed over the past few years relating to the value that is to be given to the opinion of a treating physician. In earlier cases, great deference was accorded such opinions which could be disregarded only if there existed persuasive contradictory evidence. See, e.g. Evans v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1012 (7th Cir.1984). Even so, the mere fact that a physician happened to be a treating physician did not, in and of itself, entitle the evidence to be considered of controlling weight. Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 788 (7th Cir.1982) (citing Cummins v. Schweiker, 670 F.2d 81 (7th Cir.1982)). It was stated, however, that where a treating physician's evidence was found credible, it should be given controlling weight absent evidence to the contrary, because of greater familiarity with conditions and circumstances. Whitney, 695 F.2d 784, 789.

These concepts have been refined in more recent cases. In Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284 (7th Cir.1985), it was clarified that where experience backed by observation is set against the speculative statement of a consulting physician, substantial evidence lies on the side of the treating physician. Id. at 288. Garrison v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 710 (7th Cir.1985) held that preference for the opinion of a treating physician will apply only where the ability to observe over a period of time is essential to an accurate understanding of the plaintiff's condition. Id. at 715. Correspondingly, if an impairment lends itself to objective, precise evaluation, the opinion of a specialist consultant might in some circumstances be viewed as more persuasive than that of a treating generalist. The court noted in Garrison, that certain tensions could be seen to exist between Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971), which favored...