Eden v. Chater ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    SEP 29 1997
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    JO LEE EDEN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                  No. 97-7011
    (D.C. No. CV-95-257-B)
    JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting                            (E.D. Okla.)
    Commissioner, Social Security
    Administration, *
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
    Before TACHA, MCKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
    *
    Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of
    Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), John J.
    Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E.
    Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defendant in this action.
    Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in this caption,
    in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate
    party at the time of the underlying decision.
    **
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Secretary’s
    determination that he is not disabled and is, therefore, not entitled to disability
    benefits or supplemental security income benefits. On appeal, plaintiff argues
    that the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to consider properly his mental
    impairments in combination with his other impairments to determine his residual
    functional capacity (RFC) when the ALJ failed to prepare a Psychiatric Review
    Technique (PRT) form. We review the Secretary’s decision to determine whether
    the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative
    record viewed as a whole and whether correct legal standards were applied. See
    Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 
    26 F.3d 1027
    , 1028 (10th Cir.
    1994). Because we conclude the ALJ failed to apply correct legal standards, we
    remand for further proceedings by the ALJ to assess plaintiff’s mental impairment
    in accordance with the regulations.
    -2-
    Plaintiff has made three prior applications for disability and SSI benefits. 1
    In this fourth case, plaintiff alleges disability due to pain in his right shoulder, leg
    and ankle, back problems, and limitations imposed by borderline intelligence and
    functional illiteracy. After holding an administrative hearing, the ALJ denied
    benefits. The ALJ determined that although plaintiff suffers from arthritis of the
    right ankle, bursitis of the right shoulder, tenderness in his low back, and an
    inability to read and write and he is unable to perform his past work, he retains
    the RFC to perform a full range of sedentary work, subject to his inability to read
    and write. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded plaintiff is not disabled and denied
    benefits at step five of the controlling five-step analysis. See 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520
    ; 416.920.
    Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to evaluate his mental impairment of
    borderline intelligence as required by 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404
    .1520a and 416.920a and
    failed to prepare a PRT form. In evaluating a mental impairment allegedly
    preventing the plaintiff from working, the ALJ must follow special procedures
    and prepare a PRT form. See 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404
    .1520a; 416.920a; Cruse v. United
    1
    The ALJ declined to reopen the most recent, August 19, 1993, denial.
    Thus, plaintiff must show disability as of August 20, 1993. See Califano v.
    Sanders, 
    430 U.S. 99
    , 107-08 (1977) (
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g) does not permit judicial
    review of refusal to reopen social security claims); Brown v. Sullivan, 
    912 F.2d 1194
    , 1196 (10th Cir. 1990) (federal courts have no jurisdiction to review
    Secretary’s refusal to reopen claim for disability benefits).
    -3-
    States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 
    49 F.3d 614
    , 617 (10th Cir. 1995);
    Andrade v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 
    985 F.2d 1045
    , 1048-49 (10th
    Cir. 1993). The ALJ failed to do so. Accordingly, remand is required for the ALJ
    to follow the special procedures and prepare the form as required by the
    regulations.
    Because the ALJ must reconsider plaintiff’s alleged mental impairment,
    we do not consider plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to fully present
    plaintiff’s impairments to the vocational expert. After making the appropriate
    findings regarding plaintiff’s mental impairment, the ALJ must then determine
    whether to obtain further vocational testimony.
    Because the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards, the judgment of
    the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is
    VACATED. The action is REMANDED to the district court with directions to
    remand to the Commissioner for further findings by the ALJ, who is to reconsider
    the disability determination after properly assessing plaintiff’s mental impairment.
    Entered for the Court
    Deanell Reece Tacha
    Circuit Judge
    -4-