birthday he went back to work as a coal miner. From then until March 6, 1968, he was employed in various capacities in connection with coal mining. According to his testimony much of this time he spent as a bulldozer operator in strip mining operations. He claims that as of March 6, 1968, he had to quit working as a consequence of breathing difficulties and difficulties with his upper extremities.
The medical evidence of record consists of the reports of three doctors, Dr. DeMatteis, Dr. Bell and Dr. Blide. The reports of the first two are based on their respective examinations of the plaintiff. The report of the last is apparently based on the materials contained in the other reports.
Dr. DeMatteis concluded from X-rays and ventilation studies that plaintiff was permanently and totally disabled as a result of coal miners pneumoconiosis (anthrocosilicosis).
Dr. Bell conducted two examinations of the plaintiff. At the first he conducted ventilation studies (spirogram) and had X-rays taken. His conclusion after this examination was that plaintiff suffered from bronchial asthma and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. His report stated that plaintiff should not be considered totally or permanently disabled. It appears that the findings of Dr. DeMatteis and Dr. Bell (first examination only) were submitted to Dr. Blide, a cardiopulmonary specialist. Dr. Blide concluded that the plaintiff suffered at most a mild airway obstruction. "It is felt that the claimant should be able to engage in moderate to arduous work * * *" (Report of Dr. Blide, page 130 of Record of Proceedings). Dr. Blide viewed the hypertensive cardiovascular disease as inconsequential.
Plaintiff was again sent to Dr. Bell, who conducted blood tests to determine the efficiency of plaintiff's oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange. Dr. Bell's diagnosis remained unchanged; bronchial asthma and hypertensive cardiovascular disease.
Plaintiff testified that because of his shortness of breath and the weakness of his arms and shoulders, he was unable to do any work.
Confronted with the conflicting evidence as to the degree of plaintiff's impairment, the hearing examiner resolved the conflict adversely to the plaintiff. The hearing examiner did conclude that plaintiff could not return to his old occupation. However, based on the evidence of a vocational expert, Mr. Karn, the examiner concluded that plaintiff's impairments did not preclude plaintiff from engaging in substantial gainful activity. The hearing examiner found that there existed a number of positions of a light and unskilled nature within plaintiff's vocational capabilities and that such positions existed in significant numbers near plaintiff's home.
As noted above if these findings of fact are based on substantial evidence whether or not conflicting in nature, we have no power to disturb them.
The statement of facts set out above does show substantial evidence in support of the examiner's conclusions, which conclusions were adopted by the Secretary.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and an order follows.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.