Thompson v. Chater, Commissioner ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    NORMA S. THOMPSON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 95-2443
    SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF
    SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (CA-93-2698-3-6BC)
    Submitted: January 9, 1996
    Decided: January 31, 1996
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL,
    Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    S. Michael Camp, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W.
    Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Preston Strom, Jr., United
    States Attorney, Mack A. Davis, Acting Chief Counsel, Region IV,
    Mary Ann Sloan, Principal Regional Counsel, Social Security Dis-
    ability Litigation, Haila Naomi Kleinman, Supervisory Assistant
    Regional Counsel, Ronald Lamar Paxton, Assistant Regional Coun-
    sel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for
    Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Norma Thompson appeals the district court order affirming the
    decision of the Commissioner denying Thompson's application for
    Social Security disability insurance benefits. Thompson contends that
    the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence
    because the Administrative Law Judge did not properly consider her
    age as a vocational factor. Thompson further contends that the exist-
    ing employment identified by the vocational expert did not include
    transferable skills from Thompson's nursing experience. Thompson
    also contends that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation
    adopted by the district court relied upon an incorrect burden of proof.
    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    I
    Norma Thompson fell and fractured her right elbow in November
    1991. She applied for disability insurance benefits in February 1992,
    at the age of fifty, for a period of disability beginning in November
    1991. Thompson worked as a registered nurse prior to her fracture.
    After an initial benefits denial, Thompson requested a hearing before
    an administrative law judge (ALJ). Thompson and Vocational Expert
    (VE) Mooney testified at the hearing.
    The ALJ asked Mooney, "[t]aking into account of that non-
    exertional restriction (on the right arm), and the claimant's age, edu-
    cation, and prior relevant work experience, would there be jobs exist-
    ing in the general area in which the claimant lives or the several
    2
    regions of the country that she could perform with that limitation?"
    The vocational expert testified that other work existed which was
    within Thompson's residual work capacity. These jobs included light
    duty nursing positions and other work such as a house mother, cus-
    tomer service clerk, gate attendant, or central station manager. Moo-
    ney testified to specific numbers of positions in North Carolina, but
    did not have corresponding figures for the number of existing posi-
    tions in South Carolina. She testified that the positions also existed in
    South Carolina but in slightly smaller numbers.
    The ALJ found that Thompson could not return to her past relevant
    work due to the difficulties with her right arm. He found Thompson
    not disabled, however, because she could still perform other work
    existing in the national economy. Thompson requested review from
    the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied her request and
    adopted the decision of the ALJ as the decision of the Commissioner.
    The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate
    judge to affirm the Commissioner's decision. Thompson appealed.
    II
    This court, like the district court, will uphold the Commissioner's
    disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g) (1988). Substantial evidence is "``such relevant evi-
    dence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
    conclusion.'" Richardson v. Perales, 
    402 U.S. 389
    , 401 (1971) (quot-
    ing Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 
    305 U.S. 197
    , 229 (1938)).
    Substantial evidence "consists of more than a mere scintilla of evi-
    dence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evi-
    dence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a
    jury, then there is ``substantial evidence.'" Hays v. Sullivan, 
    907 F.2d 1453
    , 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Laws v. Celebrese, 
    368 F.2d 640
    ,
    642 (4th Cir. 1962)).
    The ALJ makes factual determinations and resolves evidentiary
    conflicts including inconsistencies in the medical evidence. Review-
    ing courts do not weigh evidence anew or substitute their judgment
    for that of the Commissioner, provided that substantial evidence sup-
    ports the Commissioner's decision. Hays, 
    907 F.2d at 1456
    . Because
    substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings here, there is no rea-
    3
    son to disturb the decision of the Commissioner. In the five-step eval-
    uation of disability under 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
     (1995), if the claimant
    can no longer perform past relevant work, her age and other factors
    are taken into consideration to determine her residual work capacity.
    The ALJ specifically included age as a factor when he asked VE
    Mooney what existing work would Thompson be able to perform.
    The record demonstrates that Mooney had knowledge of Thompson's
    age. Without a showing that the claimant is illiterate or unable to
    communicate in English, and is unskilled or has no prior work experi-
    ence, her age will not be considered to seriously affect her ability to
    adjust to a significant number of jobs in the community. See 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1563
    (c); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P. App. 2.
    III
    Thompson next contends that to support a finding that she is capa-
    ble of performing other work available in the national economy, the
    existing work must utilize transferable skills from her prior work
    experience. Thompson claims that because the ALJ found that she can
    no longer perform the strenuous type of nursing that she did before
    her fracture, she must be found disabled. The regulations and case law
    point to the opposite conclusion.
    A claimant is not disabled if she is able to do work which exists
    in the national economy, but does not work because she does not want
    to do the type of work within her residual functional capacity and
    vocational abilities. 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1567
    (c)(8) (1995). Only when a
    claimant cannot do any work that she has done in the past, and cannot
    do any other work existing in the national economy, will a claimant
    be found disabled at step five. 
    20 C.F.R. § 1520
    (f). If the only exist-
    ing work that a claimant is able to perform does not utilize transfer-
    able skills or is a lower paid position, a claimant must still be found
    not disabled when other work exists in the national economy. See
    Schmidt v. Sullivan, 
    914 F.2d 117
    , 119 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
    
    502 U.S. 901
     (1991).
    Thompson also claims that the ALJ's finding that other work
    existed in the national economy is in error because Mooney based her
    testimony on an outdated edition of the Dictionary of Occupation
    Titles. Thompson failed to offer persuasive evidence that Mooney
    4
    used an outdated edition, or that harm resulted from use of an out-
    dated version, to support her claim. We find the ALJ's reliance on
    Mooney's testimony from the Dictionary of Occupation Titles to be
    without error.
    IV
    Finally, Thompson claims that the magistrate judge applied an
    incorrect burden of proof. The ALJ follows a five-step evaluation of
    disability as set forth in the Social Security regulations. 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
    . Under this analysis, the ALJ must consider whether the
    claimant: (1) is working, (2) has a severe impairment, (3) has an
    impairment that meets or equals the requirements of a listed impair-
    ment, (4) can return to her past work, and (5) if not, whether she can
    perform other work. 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
    .
    The burden of production and proof is on the claimant through the
    fourth step. At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner
    to prove that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claim-
    ant can do. Hunter, 
    993 F.2d 31
    , 35 (4th Cir. 1992). Thompson con-
    tends that the magistrate judge relied upon an incorrect burden of
    proof in his report and recommendation. The report stated "(Thomp-
    son) has not shown that she is precluded from doing all substantial
    gainful activity." It also stated: "[a] claimant for disability benefits
    bears the burden of proving a disability."
    The district court order found that the magistrate applied the cor-
    rect burden of proof, and his statements merely reflected that Thomp-
    son did not rebut the testimony by VE Mooney that she was able to
    perform other work. The district court's characterization of the magis-
    trate judge's statement is sound. The magistrate judge's statement that
    a claimant bears the burden of proving a disability is accurate because
    the claimant carries the burden through the fourth step. Only at the
    fifth step does the burden shift. At the hearing, the VE testified that
    other gainful employment existed in the national economy. The mag-
    istrate judge's statement reflects that Thompson did not adequately
    rebut the evidence of job availability. Thompson cross-examined
    Mooney but did not put forth convincing evidence to demonstrate an
    inability to perform, or the absence of, the identified positions. We
    5
    find that the district court properly found that the magistrate judge
    applied the correct burden of proof.
    V
    Finding no error with the district court order, we affirm. We grant
    the Commissioner's motion for judicial notice. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
    ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-2443

Filed Date: 1/31/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021