Filed: Patrick Fisher

F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit
JUN 22 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DOYLE W. LINDSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
No. 97-7135
(D.C. No. 96-CV-248-BU)
(E.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before TACHA , LOGAN , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Doyle Lindsey appeals the district courts order affirming the
Commissioners denial of his application for supplemental security income (SSI)
benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 42 U.S.C.
405(g).
The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at step five of the fivestep sequential process for determining disability.
See Williams v. Bowen , 844
F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing five-step process). The ALJ
determined that plaintiff could perform a wide range of light work available in
significant numbers in the national and local economies and that he is therefore
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council
denied plaintiffs request for review, making the ALJs decision the final decision
of the Commissioner.
We review the Commissioners decision to determine whether it is
supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were
applied. See Hawkins v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997).
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.
Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir.
1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). In evaluating
the appeal, we neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that
-2-
of the agency.
Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.
, 933 F.2d 799, 800
(10th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in finding (1) at step three that
plaintiff does not have a Listed Impairment; (2) at step five that plaintiff retains
the capacity to perform light work; (3) that plaintiff does not suffer from a severe
mental impairment; and (4) that the ALJs credibility assessment is unsupported
by substantial evidence.
At the time of the hearing before the ALJ, plaintiff was a thirty-nine year
old who had completed three years of college and whose past relevant work
experience consisted of work as a farm and construction laborer and truck driver.
He alleges he has been unable to work since he sustained an on-the-job back
injury in October 1990.
Plaintiff filed his application for benefits on March 28,
1994.
Following the accident, plaintiff was treated conservatively for back pain,
but with limited success.
Between September 1991 and July 1992, plaintiff
underwent three back surgeries. In September 1991, he had a lumbar

laminectomy with disc excision. In January 1992, he underwent a second lumbar
laminectomy with disc excision. Having obtained no relief from the first two
operations, in July 1992 he had a third lumbar laminectomy with fusion
-3-
stabilization using Rogozinski plates and excision of a disc protrusion.
In
December 1992 he underwent a hemorrhoidectomy.

In March and April 1993, plaintiff participated in a work hardening
program intended to increase tolerances for sitting, standing, crouching, and
kneeling, to increase his abilities for lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling, and to
increase flexibility and weight-bearing capacities. He met some goals of the
program but not others. His attendance and progress were inconsistent.
Upon
discharge in April 1993 the counselor recommended that he be rated at the light
physical demand level and possibly be a candidate for vocational retraining.
II
R. 186. At the hearing, plaintiff testified that the mental aspect of the work
hardening program was good, but as far as physically helping my body, no, but
just mentally it taught me to relax, and take my mind off my pain as best I can,
and, you know, just try to cope with life with what I have.
Id. at 278.
Plaintiff first argues that the record contains substantial evidence that he
suffers from a vertebrogenic disorder sufficient to meet or equal a listed
impairment because he has [o]ther vertebrogenic disorders . . . with the
following persisting for at least 3 months despite prescribed therapy and expected
to last 12 months. With both 1 and 2:
1. Pain, muscle spasms, and significant limitation of motion in the
spine; and
-4-
2. Appropriate radicular distribution of significant motor loss with

muscle weakness and sensory and reflex loss.
20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, 1.05(C).
Plaintiff asserts that at step three the ALJs findings did not reflect specific
weighing of the evidence and give reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence.
See Clifton v. Chater , 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996).
Under 42 U.S.C. 405(b)(1), the ALJ is required to discuss the evidence

and explain why he found that appellant was not disabled at step three.
79 F.3d at 1009. In
Clifton ,
Clifton , the ALJ did not discuss the evidence or his reasons
for determining that appellant was not disabled at step three; he merely stated a
summary conclusion that appellants impairments did not meet or equal any Listed
Impairment. We held that [s]uch a bare conclusion is beyond meaningful
judicial review, and concluded that absent ALJ findings supported by specific
weighing of the evidence, we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately
supports the ALJs conclusion that appellants impairments did not meet or equal
any Listed Impairment, and whether he applied the correct legal standards to
arrive at that conclusion.
Id. ; see also Hasting v. Callahan , No. 96-1221-MLB,
1997 WL 557332, at *1-2 (D. Kan. July 16, 1997);
Farish v. Chater , No. 95-1276-
We recognize that the ALJ did not have the benefit of our decision in
Clifton , which was filed while this case was on review before the Appeals
Council. However, plaintiff raised the issue before both the magistrate judge and
the district court.
-5-
MLB, 1997 WL 109689, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 1997);
Roberts v. Callahan , 971
F. Supp. 498, 501 (D. N.M. 1997).

In the instant case the ALJs opinion contains more discussion than in
Clifton . But it is still inadequate. Only one doctor, John A. Munneke, M.D.,
stated an opinion that plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ relied strongly on that
opinion. Yet Dr. Munnekes conclusion is inexplicable in light of his
immediately prior statement that based on his examination: it is my opinion that
the patient has, as a result of the combination of these multiple injuries, 92%
impairment to the body as a whole representing a material increase of 8%. It is
my opinion that these injuries are synergistic and there is a need for a material
increase over and above the numerical sum of these injuries. II R. 245. The
ALJ rejected the opinion of Michael D. Farrar, M.D., that plaintiff is totally
disabled because that doctor was retained by plaintiffs attorney and he included
occupational factors more appropriate to a vocational expert.
Id. at 15.
The ALJ recites evidence from Casey Truett, M.D.s report but does not
mention that doctors conclusion that plaintiff is 100 percent permanently and
totally disabled.
Id. at 214. The ALJ recites evidence from the report of
consultive examiner Gerald A. Snider, M.D., but does not mention that doctors
conclusion that plaintiff suffers from very marked degenerative lumbar spine
disease, post lumbar laminectomy infusion after three spinal surgeries, chronic
-6-
strain of the left shoulder,and controlled depression.
Id. at 220. The ALJ rejects
the report of Thomas Conklin, Jr., D.O. that plaintiff is permanently and totally
disabled, because the doctors notes are unreadable. Dr. Conklin, however, is the
physician who treated plaintiff the most for his pain, and saw him many times
over a long period. His records contain many notes but in some kind of shorthand
that was perhaps unique to that doctor. An ALJ may not substitute his own
medical judgment for that of medical professionals,
see Winfrey v. Chater , 92
F.3d 1017, 1023 (10th Cir. 1996), or reject apparently probative medical evidence
without explanation.
See Teter v. Heckler , 775 F.2d 1104, 1106 (10th Cir. 1985)
(error to reject some medical reports as based on inadequate findings when they
are comparable to those reports the ALJ found sufficiently detailed).
In addition to summarily dismissing the pre-1995 notes of Dr. Conklin,
plaintiffs primary treating physician, as unreadable, the ALJ made some
misstatements of the record. He relied on plaintiffs attendance at school as
indicating a capacity to sit for extended periods.
See II R. 18. But the record
indicates plaintiffs last school attendance was no later than 1989, before the 1990
back injury he claims as the onset of his disability.
See id. at 69, 79, 260, 276,
282-84. Also to reject plaintiffs claims of disabling pain he says plaintiff failed
to appear at a work hardening program because he was out all weekend doing
yard work.
Id. at 18. The record shows only that plaintiff did not show up one
-7-
day because he told another patient he hurt too much due to activities such as
mowing the yard over the previous weekend.
Id. at 184.
We are not satisfied the ALJ adequately or accurately discussed the

evidence and provided the explanation required by 42 U.S.C. 405(b)(1).
Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for the ALJ to set out his specific
findings and his reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence at step three.
Because additional proceedings will now ensue at step three, it is
unnecessary to reach plaintiffs alleged errors at step five. We note, however,
that in evaluating the credibility of pain testimony, in addition to the criteria
listed in 20 C.F.R. 416.929(c)(3) and S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (July 2,
1996)), the ALJ should also take into consideration
the levels of medication and their effectiveness, the extensiveness of
the attempts (medical or nonmedical) to obtain relief, the frequency
of medical contacts, the nature of daily activities, subjective
measures of credibility that are peculiarly within the judgment of the
ALJ, the motivation of and relationship between the claimant and
other witnesses, and the consistency or compatibility of nonmedical
testimony with objective medical evidence.
Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482, 1489 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting
Huston v.
Bowen , 838 F.2d 1125, 1132 (10th Cir. 1988)). We are particularly concerned
because the ALJ determined that plaintiffs statements concerning his
impairments . . . are not entirely credible in light of [his] own description of his
activities and lifestyle, discrepancies between [his] assertions and information
-8-
contained in the documentary reports, [his] demeanor at hearing, the reports of the
treating and examining practitioners, the medical history, the findings made on
examination, and [his] assertions concerning his ability to work. II R. at 19.
Except for his reliance on misstatements of the record, mentioned above, the ALJ
recited little to relate what activities or facets of plaintiffs lifestyle he found to
be inconsistent with plaintiffs description of pain.
See e.g. , Winfrey , 92 F.3d at
1019 (In addition to a lack of substantial evidence, the Secretarys failure to

apply the correct legal standards, or to show us that she has done so, are also
grounds for reversal.) Although we ordinarily defer to the ALJ on credibility
issues, the rule of deference is not absolute.
See Thompson v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d
1482, 1490 (10th Cir. 1993). Findings as to credibility should be closely and
affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise
of findings. Huston , 838 F.2d at 1133.
Moreover, an ALJ may not rely on minimal daily activities as substantial
evidence that a claimant does not suffer disabling pain.
Thompson , 987 F.2d at
1490 (citing Frey v. Bowen , 816 F.2d 508, 516 (10th Cir. 1987)). As previously
noted, the ALJs finding that plaintiff began attendance at school, which he
maintained for awhile, which indicates a capacity for sitting for extended periods,
more than he currently admits, II R. at 18, is unsupported by the record, as is his
statement about plaintiff being out all weekend doing yard work.
-9-
Id. , see Sisco
v. United States Dept of Health & Human Servs
., 10 F.3d 739, 743 (10th Cir.
1993) (ALJ may not build factual basis by taking Plaintiffs testimony out of
context and selectively acknowledging parts of her statements while leaving
important segments out).
If, on remand, the ALJ again reaches the step-five determination, he should
reevaluate plaintiffs claim of disabling pain in light of the entire record.
Accordingly, we REVERSE, and REMAND to the Commissioner for additional
proceedings consistent herewith.
Entered for the Court
James K. Logan
Circuit Judge
-10-

Filed: Patrick Fisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed: Patrick Fisher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed: Patrick Fisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F I L E D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Before TACHA , LOGAN , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

See Williams v. Bowen , 844

Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir.

Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.

, 933 F.2d 799, 800

(10th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff filed his application for benefits on March 28,

Between September 1991 and July 1992, plaintiff

underwent three back surgeries. In September 1991, he had a lumbar

stabilization using Rogozinski plates and excision of a disc protrusion.

December 1992 he underwent a hemorrhoidectomy.

2. Appropriate radicular distribution of significant motor loss with

Under 42 U.S.C. 405(b)(1), the ALJ is required to discuss the evidence

Id. ; see also Hasting v. Callahan , No. 96-1221-MLB,

1997 WL 557332, at *1-2 (D. Kan. July 16, 1997);

Farish v. Chater , No. 95-1276-

MLB, 1997 WL 109689, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 1997);

Roberts v. Callahan , 971

F. Supp. 498, 501 (D. N.M. 1997).

Id. at 214. The ALJ recites evidence from the report of

strain of the left shoulder,and controlled depression.

Id. at 220. The ALJ rejects

see Winfrey v. Chater , 92

See II R. 18. But the record

See id. at 69, 79, 260, 276,

We are not satisfied the ALJ adequately or accurately discussed the

See e.g. , Winfrey , 92 F.3d at

1019 (In addition to a lack of substantial evidence, the Secretarys failure to

See Thompson v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d

Thompson , 987 F.2d at

Id. , see Sisco

v. United States Dept of Health & Human Servs

., 10 F.3d 739, 743 (10th Cir.

You might also like