only of "some residual left handed weakness and some right superior quadrantanopsia." Tr. 172.
Based on examinations of Ms. Hejna on March 14, 1994 and April 13, 1994, Dr. Charles D'Angelo, a neurologist, noted that Ms. Hejna experienced slight weakness in her left upper and lower extremities. He further stated that her left side felt slightly fatigued after sustained or repetitive activity. Dr. D'Angelo indicated that Ms. Hejna's gait was normal.
Dr. D'Angelo examined Ms. Hejna in his office on May 3, 1994. On that day, he wrote a letter to Dr. Floyd in which he stated that the results of Ms. Hejna's neurological examination were "entirely normal." Ms. Hejna showed no signs of "global or focal deficit"; her incisions healed well; and she had no complaints except for fatigue and "some clicking near her left temporomandibular joint ... probably due to tightness of the left temporal muscle which was mobilized at the time of surgery." Tr. 188. Dr. D'Angelo recommended that Ms. Hejna have an EEG in one month. If the EEG did not show any seizure activity, he would consider discontinuing her Dilantin. Dr. D'Angelo concluded: "It is quite possible that her 'seizure disorder' was due to her aneurysms." Tr. 188.
On June 21, 1994, Dr. Michael Smith, a neurologist, examined Ms. Hejna and reported that she had not recently experienced any seizures. Dr. Smith did not mention serious weakness in the left arm or leg. He stated: "Motor examination revealed good power and normal tone, with deep tendon reflexes slightly brisker on the right vs the left." Tr. 204. He reported that Ms. Hejna's gait was normal and her spatial memory was intact, but she had an impairment to her verbal memory and visual field.
In July, 1994, Ms. Hejna apparently complained of "spells." Tr. 206. She was then given carbamazepine, and her complaints ceased. Dr. Smith's treatment notes from August, 1994 indicate that Ms. Hejna felt fine and had no seizures. Consequently, she was instructed to remain on carbamazepine.
Two residual functional capacity assessments in the record conclude that Ms. Hejna is capable of performing the full range of light work except for work involving unprotected heights or dangerous machinery. Tr. 153-60, 190-97.
Despite the evidence recited above, Ms. Hejna argues that other evidence in the record supports her claimed disability, which she says includes seizures, episodes in which she essentially "blacks-out", and numbness resulting in her ability to use only one hand. Most of this evidence was Ms. Hejna's own testimony. No medical evidence supported her claims. (The one possible exception, a report from her own doctor to an insurance company written on December 9, 1993, stating that she should be considered totally disabled until at least January, 1995, was effectively supplanted by later reports by him following her second surgery, including a May 3, 1994 letter in which Dr. D'Angelo stated that her neurological examination was "entirely normal" and that her previous seizure disorder may have been due to the aneurysms.) The only evidence to support Ms. Hejna's testimony were reports by her relatives (written in March, 1994) in which they stated that she had had seizures in their presence. But reports by Dr. Smith, one of her doctors, in June and August, 1994, stated that she had had no recent seizures.
Ms. Hejna complains that the ALJ mischaracterized Ms. Hejna's testimony, particularly her statements with respect to childcare and housework, but the record supports the ALJ's conclusions. To the extent that some of the testimony could support a contrary view, the ALJ on this record was entitled to disbelieve Ms. Hejna. Her credibility determination was not "patently wrong." Diaz, 55 F.3d at 308.
Ms. Hejna contends that the ALJ improperly emphasized the fact that she was employed. I disagree. Even though the ALJ found that Ms. Hejna was engaged in substantial gainful activity, the ALJ noted that if Ms. Hejna was disabled, then her employment could be deemed a "trial work period." Therefore, the ALJ completed the sequential analysis in order to determine whether Ms. Hejna could be considered to be undertaking a "trial work period." The ALJ, however, found that Ms. Hejna was not disabled and therefore would not be entitled to benefits.
Ms. Hejna also argues that the ALJ questioned her in an adversarial manner. Again, I do not agree. The transcript of the hearing indicates only that ALJ Hughes interrogated Ms. Hejna in order to discover the truth, which an ALJ properly may do. See Roach v. National Transportation Safety Board, 804 F.2d 1147, 1160 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006, 100 L. Ed. 2d 195, 108 S. Ct. 1732 (1988).
Finally, Ms. Hejna attaches to her brief a "Discharge/Transfer Summary," dated June 23, 1995, from the Illinois Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. There is no indication that this document was part of the record before the Commissioner. Ms. Hejna does not request that I remand her case to the Commissioner for consideration of this document. Accordingly, I may not take the document into account.
I conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's conclusion that Ms. Hejna is capable of doing light work with some restrictions.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is granted, and Ms. Hejna's motion for summary judgment is denied.
ELAINE E. BUCKLO
United States District Judge
Dated: July 25, 1996.