to engage in substantial gainful activity, for the reason that the bald statement of Dr. Rowe that claimant 'could do light work' does not even purport to define the extent to which claimant can do light work. Dr. Rowe, in his medical report, expresses no opinion as to whether the claimant is one of that class of persons who have sustained an injury but are capable of steadily performing certain types of light work which are presumably available and procurable, or whether he is one of that class who are not able, uninterruptedly, to do even light work owing to their physical limitations, a person labeled in Pennsylvania as ' a nondescript.' See Stewart v. Commonwealth, 198 Pa.Super. 261, 182 A.2d 100 (1962). Absent such a definition of the extent to which claimant can do light work, the report of Dr. Rowe cannot constitute 'substantial evidence' to support a finding that claimant is able to engage in substantial gainful employment.
At most, the report of Dr. Rowe can be deemed to constitute 'substantial evidence' to support a finding that claimant can, with interruptions, do light work. Under these circumstances, for claimant to find gainful employment, a job would have to be made for him and we must be realistic enough to understand and appreciate that in the labor market today, jobs are not made for any person. Nothing in the record before the Court suggests that there is any such reasonable possibility available to the claimant.
On the basis of the composite medical testimony, the uncontradicted testimony of the claimant, the fact that all of the doctors' reports were made at the behest of either the Social Security Administration or claimant's employer's workmen's compensation carrier, and the reasonable interpretation to be made of the report of Dr. Rowe when the entire report is considered, it is evident that there simply is not substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that claimant is capable of doing a type of light work of which there is a reasonable possibility of being employed to do.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A meticulous review by the Court of the oral and documentary evidence presented to the Social Security Administration requires the following conclusion:
1. Substantial evidence is not present in the record to support the Examiner's findings that the impairment suffered by the claimant does not meet the standards of disability as set forth in the Act.
2. Substantial evidence is not present in the record to support the finding of the Examiner that despite his present back condition, the claimant, in view of his age, his education, his training and experience in the United States Armed Forces, and his work experience in industry, should be able to perform some form of light or sedentary work, especially in the sales, clerical or bench assembly fields.
3. No finding has been made that a reasonable possibility of claimant finding suitable employment exists and even if such a finding had been made, substantial evidence is not present in the record to support a finding that there is a reasonable possibility of claimant finding suitable employment.
An appropriate Order is entered.
Now, therefore, this 12th day of August, 1963, it is ordered and directed that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, is denied.
The Motion for Summary Judgment of claimant, George Popovich, will be and hereby is granted.
It is further ordered and directed that the decision of the Hearing Examiner and governmental agency, not being supported by substantial evidence and contrary to law, will be and hereby is reversed and set aside.
Finally it is ordered that the claimant, George Popovich, is entitled to disability insurance benefits and to the establishment of a period of disability.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.