Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WRIGHT v. BOWEN

January 20, 1989

ROBERT WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
OTIS BOWEN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BUA

 NICHOLAS J. BUA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

 On November 27, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Francis J. O'Byrne ("ALJ") ruled that plaintiff Robert Wright is "disabled" as defined by the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. The ALJ concluded that Wright's disability resulted from a combination of ailments, including a severe hernia and degenerative arthritis of the lumbosacral spine. The ALJ further determined that the onset date of Wright's disability was May 22, 1987 -- the date on which Wright's severe hernia was diagnosed and first treated. Based on these findings, the ALJ ruled that Wright is entitled to disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments beginning May 22, 1987. Subsequently, the defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") adopted the ALJ's ruling as its final decision concerning Wright's application for disability benefits.

 In this action, brought pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Wright appeals the Secretary's final decision adopting the ALJ's rulings. Specifically, Wright's appeal raises a single issue: whether the ALJ properly concluded that Wright became disabled on, and not before, May 22, 1987. Both Wright and the Secretary have moved for summary judgment.

 Wright contests the ALJ's ruling on two grounds. Wright first argues that the ALJ failed to apply the proper analysis -- as described in Social Security Ruling 83-20 ("SSR 83-20") -- in determining the onset date of his disability. However, the court finds that the ALJ implicitly, if not expressly, applied the analysis mandated by SSR 83-20. Under that rule, three factors must be considered to determine the onset date: the applicant's allegations, the applicant's work history, and the medical evidence. Each of these factors is discussed separately and thoroughly in the ALJ's decision. Clearly, therefore, the ALJ considered these factors in determining the onset date of Wright's disability.

 Wright's second argument is that the ALJ's determination concerning the onset date of Wright's disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Wright claims that the ALJ should have found that he became disabled prior to May 22, 1987. Although he fails to identify any specific alternative date marking the onset of his disability, Wright apparently concedes that he was not disabled prior to December 1985. Up until that time, he remained employed in the assembly line job which he had held for over a decade.

 The ALJ's task of determining the exact date on which Wright became disabled was very difficult for several reasons. First, Wright's work history was not very helpful in making that determination. Although Wright had worked steadily virtually all of his life until December 1985, he did not leave his employment due to illness. Instead, he testified he was fired due to disagreements with his foreman. Therefore, the fact that he stopped working after December 1985 does not necessarily indicate that he became disabled at or around that point in time. In addition, Wright's own testimony before the ALJ was not very enlightening. Wright could not say for certain how long he would have continued to work had he not been fired. Even when pressed, Wright simply was unable to indicate with any accuracy the date on which his ailments prevented him from continuing work.

 Conversely, after the operation, the attending physician's report ordered Wright to avoid all strenuous activity. This report constitutes strong evidence that as of May 22, 1987, Wright was limited to light or sedentary work. Accordingly, considering Wright's advanced age (56 on the date of the operation), minimal education (fourth grade), and work experience (unskilled labor), the ALJ found that Wright was disabled as of the date of the operation. This conclusion clearly is supported by substantial evidence contained in the medical record described above. Therefore, the Secretary's motion for summary judgment is granted.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: January 20, 1989

19890120

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.