Zimiga v. Schweiker, 81-1171
| Decision Date | 23 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1171,81-1171 |
| Citation | 651 F.2d 611 |
| Parties | Marclef ZIMIGA, Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, * Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James D. Leach, Rapid City, S. D., for Zimiga.
Terry L. Pechota, U. S. Atty., Rapid City, S. D., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Marclef Zimiga received Supplemental Security Income disability benefits from 1974 until 1979. In June 1979 the Secretary of Health and Human Services notified Zimiga that his disability was considered to have ceased. Following a hearing an administrative law judge determined that Zimiga suffered from no disability. This determination became the Secretary's final decision upon the Appeals Council's denial of review. On review the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Secretary on the ground that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's decision. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Zimiga.
At the time of the hearing, Zimiga was 42 years old. Although without any high school education, he had been trained and employed as a welder. While working in that capacity at a South Dakota uranium mill he suffered physical impairment, diagnosed as pulmonary disorder, and in 1974 was found to be disabled. He has not worked since 1971. Zimiga testified that his condition has progressively worsened, and that he is now incapable of even slight physical exertion without subsequent rest. Indeed, he testified, he sleeps fifteen hours a day as a result of his condition.
The administrative law judge found that Zimiga "is unable to perform his past relevant work." This finding was fully supported by Zimiga's testimony and by the medical reports of examining physicians received in evidence. Zimiga therefore satisfied his primary burden of proof of inability to perform his past occupations because of medically determinable ailments, and shifted the burden to the Secretary to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was work available in the national economy that Zimiga could perform in his disabled condition. E. g., Gilliam v. Califano, 620 F.2d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1980).
The Secretary attempted to discharge his burden by reference to "medical vocational guidelines" contained in Appendix 2 to Subpart I of 20 C.F.R. Part 416 (1980). 1 The administrative law judge found that Zimiga had the "residual functional capacity" for light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.910 (1980), and accordingly held that Rules 202.17 and 202.18 in Table No. 2 of Subpart I's Appendix 2 dictated a finding that Zimiga was not disabled. 2 We have carefully searched the record and can find no substantial evidence to support the finding that Zimiga has the residual functional capacity to do light work. 3
Two physicians examined Zimiga in 1979 and submitted reports received in evidence. The report of Dr. W. J. Howard, which the administrative law judge termed "equivocal," concluded that Zimiga "probably does have obstructive airways disease" of uncertain severity. The report of Dr. Elmo J. Rosario, however, submitted after the hearing at the request of the administrative law judge, concluded that Zimiga suffers from "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with pulmonary function evidence of moderate obstructive dysfunction." The final comment in Dr. Rosario's report characterized Zimiga's condition as one of "severe disease," the majority of which is "not reversible."
In short, nothing contained in either of the medical reports or in Zimiga's testimony supports the finding that Zimiga is capable of performing light work. Because the administrative law judge necessarily predicated his conclusion that Zimiga is not disabled on this finding, substantial evidence fails to support the conclusion. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Zimiga.
It is so ordered.
* This Court on its own motion substitutes Secretary Schweiker as appellee in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoy v. Schweiker, s. 81-1629
...courts, relying on the numerous strong precedents in this Circuit requiring the use of vocational experts, e.g., Zimiga v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 611, 612-13 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981); Garrett v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1972), agreed that the Guidelines were not an adequate substitute for......
-
Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
...easier to read and understand by removing legalistic language and bureaucratic jargon. 45 Fed.Reg. 55,566 (1980); Zimiga v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 611, 612 n.1 (8th Cir. 1981). Because these revisions affect no issue before us, we will cite the presently codified regulations.2 For the sake of ......
-
Bricker v. Berryhill
...v. Schweiker,696 F 2d 630, 631 at n.1 (8th Cir. 1983); Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 1981); Ziminga v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 611, 613 (8th Cir. 1981)). The Commissioner argues that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's condition does not meet the c......
-
Stewart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
...Nelson v. Heckler, 712 F.2d 346, 349 (8th Cir.1983); Tennant v. Schweiker, 682 F.2d 707, 710-11 (8th Cir.1982); Zimiga v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 611, 613 (8th Cir.1981). III. We reverse and remand to the district court for entry of a judgment awarding Stewart disability benefits, under 42 U.S.......