section there is an irrebuttable presumption of total disability (Section 921(c)(3)) due to pneumoconiosis "(A) when diagnosed by chest roentgenogram, yields one or more large opacities (greater than one centimeter in diameter) and would be classified in category, A, B, or C in the International Classification of Radiographs of the Pneumoconioses by the International Labor Organization". Thus, a miner who meets the medical tests for irrebuttable presumption of total disability would be entitled to "black lung" benefits even though he would not meet the vocational test disability for benefits by reason of pneumoconiosis or the Section 223(d) (42 U.S.C. Section 423(d)) test by reason of pneumoconiosis for entitlement of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
The plaintiff has emphasized his alleged pain, especially to his back. However, the clinical neurological and X-ray findings reported and considered by the Administrative Law Judge were clearly a basis for a finding that the plaintiff has not substantiated any severe or intractable pain, but only an occasional mild to moderate discomfort as indicative of an old back strain. The inability of an individual to work without some pain or discomfort does not necessarily satisfy the test for disability under the Social Security Act. Emmette v. Richardson, 337 F. Supp. 362 (W.D. Va. 1971); Garboden v. Secretary of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 258 F. Supp. 370 (D. Ore. 1966). The burden always remains on the plaintiff to prove that the pain is disabling. Mark v. Celebrezze, 348 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1965); Cf. Miller v. Richardson, 457 F.2d 378 (3d Cir. 1972). The record, further, fails to substantiate any manifestation of severe pain as seen through muscular atrophy, contracture, any discernable loss of weight, impairment of musculature or neurological changes. Therefore, there seems to be strong support for the conclusion that the medical record shows the plaintiff was not significantly restricted but retained the capacity for sustained physical activities with no significant limitations present. See Carter v. Finch, 308 F. Supp. 954 (S.D.W. Va. 1969) aff'd 421 F.2d 702 (4th Cir. 1970). The weight of Dr. Katter's opinion was for the Administrative Law Judge and would certainly not be binding upon him.
A vocational expert, Mr. Karn, found a relatively large number of sedentary or light jobs existing in the economy which the plaintiff could do, and gave as examples such jobs as electrical parts assembler, inspector, hand trimmer, frame coverer and tool clerk. The expert testified that the examples cited by him were representative only of many types of work in which the claimant would have been able to engage on a full time basis. They were light and sedentary in nature and were well within the claimant's educational qualifications, and could be performed by him after only a short period of demonstration or on the job training. Further, that they existed in significant numbers in the region in which the claimant resided and in other regions of the country.
Under all the evidence in this case then, the Court must affirm the finding that the plaintiff's conditions were not such as to preclude his engaging in light and sedentary work, and that there was ample evidence on the record to sustain a finding that such work was, in fact, available to the plaintiff.
An appropriate order will be entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.