Williams v. Shalala, 92-55753

• Decision Date: 13 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 92-55753,92-55753
• Citation: 35 F.3d 573
• Parties: NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, * Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 573

35 F.3d 573

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Charles WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, ^* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-55753.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 1993.

Decided Sept. 13, 1994.

Before: FLETCHER and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WILL, ^** Senior District Judge.

MEMORANDUM ^***

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Williams appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services (the "Secretary") in this action challenging the Secretary's denial of his second application for disability benefits pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. In his application, Williams alleged disability due to the amputation of his right leg, hypertension, a personality disorder, and substance abuse. Following this Court's remand for further consideration of Williams' exertional capacity and vocational expert testimony, the Secretary determined that Williams retained the residual functional capacity to perform light and sedentary work. Williams now argues on appeal that the Secretary's determination is not supported by substantial evidence, that his due process rights were violated by the district court's application of res judicata, and that the Secretary made various legal errors in reaching its conclusion. Because we do not find that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's ultimate findings, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Charles Williams was born on July 31, 1944, and has completed the tenth grade. He has alleged a disability to work since July 23, 1981, at which time he sustained a crash injury to his right foot and leg which required below-the-knee amputation of his right leg. His prior jobs included machine operator, truck driver, forklift operator, laborer with a lumber company, and buffer/grinder. In 1986, Williams returned to work as a security guard; he has apparently worked intermittently in this capacity from 1987 to 1990.

Alleging that he became disabled as a result of the July 1981 accident, Williams first filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits on April 21, 1983. This application was denied by Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Edward I. Staten on January 30, 1984. Excerpt of Record ("ER") at 5-10. Williams did not appeal from this determination. Williams next filed applications for disability benefits on July 10, 1984 and July 23, 1984 respectively, again alleging that he became disabled on July 23, 1981, when he suffered his crash injury and had to have his right leg amputated. His applications were denied both initially and on reconsideration by the Social Security Administration, which found him not to be disabled. Williams then requested an administrative hearing before an ALJ. Following this hearing, ALJ Donald A. Altman found on February 15, 1986 that the plaintiff was not disabled. ER at 11-19. The Appeals Council approved the ALJ's decision on April 15, 1986.

On May 15, 1986, Williams filed an action in federal court pursuant to Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 405(g) & 1383(c)(3), for judicial review of the Secretary's decision. On September 23, 1987, the district court adopted the recommendations of the magistrate judge and granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court, which in an unpublished memorandum decision dated November 14, 1988, reversed and remanded the case to the Secretary for reconsideration of Williams' exertional capacity and vocational expert testimony. Williams v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 875 (9th Cir.1988). Accordingly, another hearing was held before ALJ Altman, who issued a decision on November 6, 1988 finding that Williams was not disabled since he remained capable of doing certain light jobs as identified by the vocational expert. ER at 20-26.

Upon learning that the plaintiff had been working as a security guard during at least part of the period for which he alleged disability, the Appeals Council asserted jurisdiction over Williams' case. On March 14, 1991, the Appeals Council amended the ALJ's findings to reflect Williams' substantial gainful activity beginning in 1988 and adopted the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled and therefore not entitled to either disability insurance or SSI benefits. ER at 27-31. This decision became the final decision of the Secretary.

Williams next sought review in federal district court. On March 4, 1992, the district court judge adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which found that the Secretary's determination that Williams was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. On March 11, 1992, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. ER at 49. The plaintiff now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment.

The district court exercised its jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 405(g) and 1383(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a district court's order upholding the Secretary's denial of benefits. Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 679 (9th Cir.1993); Tylitzki v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir.1993). See also Miller v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 845, 847-48 (9th Cir.1985); Haluapo v. Akashi Kaiun, K.K., 748 F.2d 1363, 1364 (9th Cir.1984). In determining whether the district court correctly upheld the Secretary's denial of benefits, we must review the Secretary's decision to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied. Curry v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1990). The Supreme Court has held that while a mere scintilla of proof will not suffice to uphold the Secretary's findings, the standard of substantial evidence requires no more than "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). See also Matthews, 10 F.3d at 679 (citing Tylitzki, 999 F.2d at 1413). In our review for substantial evidence, we must consider the administrative record as a whole. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1989).

III. DISCUSSION

The Social Security Act provides that an applicant for disability benefits must establish an inability "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382c(a)(3)(A). A person is determined to be under a disability only if:

his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.

42 U.S.C. Secs. 423(d)(2)(A), 1382(a)(3)(B). A physical or mental impairment is "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. Secs. 423(d)(3), 1382(a)(3)(C).

As articulated in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382(a)(3), 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.920 (1993), the Secretary must undertake a five-part sequential inquiry to ascertain whether the claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(1)(1)(D), such that he or she would be entitled to benefits. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 504 (9th Cir.1990). The Secretary must first determine whether the claimant is performing "substantial gainful activity," which would mandate that the claimant be found not disabled regardless of medical condition, age, education, and work experience. Next, the Secretary must determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment. If no severe impairment is found, the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant has an impairment which meets or is equivalent to an impairment listed in the regulations, the claimant is disabled. If the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the Secretary must consider whether the impairment in combination with other factors prevents the claimant from doing past work. Finally, the Secretary must consider whether the claimant can perform other work. The sequential inquiry is terminated when a question is answered affirmatively or negatively in such a way that a decision can be made that the claimant is or is not disabled. Id.

Following this Court's remand, an administrative hearing was held during which this sequential evaluation process was followed. ALJ Altman on November 6, 1989 concluded that, based on his exertional capacity for light and sedentary work, his age, his education, and his past work experience, the plaintiff was not disabled. ER at 26. Having obtained updated earnings information revealing that Williams had been engaged in substantial gainful activity beginning "sometime in 1988 and continuing" through his employment as a security guard, the Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's findings, but modified them slightly to reflect this fact. ER at 29-30.

It is this decision, which constitutes the Secretary's final decision, that the plaintiff challenges. He argues that the Secretary erred by applying incorrect legal standards in...