Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.


March 24, 1981

Patricia Roberts HARRIS, Secretary of Health and Human Services

The opinion of the court was delivered by: GILES


Plaintiff, Ulysees Burnett, appeals the Secretary's final decision denying his claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. *fn1" The issue presented is whether substantial evidence exists to support the Secretary's decision. For the reasons that follow, the summary judgment motions of both parties are denied and the case shall be remanded to the Secretary for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 On April 17, 1979, claimant filed an application for disability benefits with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at its branch office in Philadelphia alleging that on December 12, 1978 he became disabled. His claim was denied on June 17, 1979. On July 25, 1979, his request for reconsideration was also denied. Tr. 163, 167. Claimant then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). On October 26, 1979, the requested hearing was held. In a decision dated February 14, 1980, the ALJ held claimant not entitled to benefits. The Appeals council affirmed the ALJ decision on April 1, 1980 and on May 8, 1980 claimant filed his complaint in this court.

 I. Facts

 In his application for disability insurance benefits, claimant, then fifty years old, alleged that he was physically disabled from performing basic functions associated with his former employment as a truck driver and pest controller for the City of Philadelphia. (Tr. at 148). Claimant worked for the City for over twenty years. (Tr. 48). Burnett ascribed his disability to the effects of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, heart disease, arthritis, and lingering numbness from strokes suffered in 1977 and 1978. (Tr. 147-48, 152-53). His complaints of physical impairments were corroborated by written reports from his treating physicians who had conducted extensive clinical evaluations of the claimant over the past several years and had recommended his retirement. (Tr. at 121, 129, 137, 147, 175-208).

 The government did not introduce into evidence any contrary medical facts. Indeed, in denying claimant's application for disability benefits on June 17, 1979, the government relied upon evidence submitted by Dr. Titus, and a July 31, 1978 report of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital (hereinafter "Hospital") (Tr. 161-164). Dr. Titus was claimant's physician. *fn2"

 II. Discussion

 A claimant satisfies his initial burden of proving entitlement to disability benefits by having his treating physician substantiate his subjective claims. Livingston v. Califano, 614 F.2d 342, 345 (3d Cir. 1980); Rossi v. Califano, 602 F.2d 55, 57 (3d Cir. 1979). The ALJ is not bound to accept the conclusion of claimant's physician without weighing it against other relevant evidence. Urgolites v. Finch, 316 F. Supp. 1168 (W.D.Pa.1970). An ALJ must resolve contradictory medical evidence and give reasons for accepting or rejecting such evidence. Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 703-708 (3d Cir. 1981). If no contradictory evidence exists, the ALJ is bound by the expert opinions of claimant's treating physician regarding the existence of the disability. Rossi v. Califano, 602 F.2d at 57-58; Eiden v. Secretary of H.E.W., 616 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir. 1980); McLaughlin v. Secretary of H.E.W., 612 F.2d 701, 705 (2nd Cir. 1980).

"Although the burden is upon claimant to prove his disability, "due regard for the beneficent purposes of the legislation requires that a more tolerant standard be used in this administrative proceeding than is applicable in a typical suit in a court of record where the adversary system prevails.' "

 (citations omitted).

 In the instant case, there is no evidence regarding alternative vocations. Accordingly, the Secretary's decision can be upheld only if claimant failed to satisfy his burden of showing his inability to work as a truck driver. Claimant made out a prima facie case of entitlement to disability benefits due to his subjective complaints corroborated by his physicians' clinical findings and their recommendations that he not return to work. Livingston v. Califano, 614 F.2d at 345; Rossi v. Califano, 602 F.2d at 57.

 In deciding to deny claimant's application for disability benefits, the ALJ relied heavily upon hospital notes covering the period of July 25, 1978 through November 9, 1979. Those records show that in November, 1979, claimant came to the hospital complaining of pain in the right side of his face, occasional headaches and pain in his right hand at night. Tr. 175. The physician noted that claimant suffered high blood pressure but that the blood pressure and claimant's sugar were well controlled. This medical evidence together with findings that claimant appeared to have completely recovered from Bell's Palsy, had an improved right shoulder, appeared free of hemorrhages or exudates, and had a negative January, 1979 stress test, all led the ALJ to deny claimant's application. Tr. 48-50.

 To rebut this evidence, claimant filed of record a physician's report by Dr. Titus, his treating physician, dated January 7, 1980. The ALJ admitted the report into evidence on February 14, 1980, the day she delivered her opinion denying Burnett's claim. In the report, Dr. Titus stated claimant was obese, suffered from arteriosclerotic hypertensive heart disease, uncontrolled diabetes and arthritis. In denying claimant's application for disability benefits, the ALJ failed to reconcile or even discuss this conflicting medical evidence. The July, 1978 and November, 1979 hospital reports both show that claimant's blood pressure was within normal limits or well controlled, as was his diabetes. Tr. ...

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.