Venable v. Apfel

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 29 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TERRY RAY VENABLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-5030
(D.C. No. 98-CV-701-M)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, ANDERSON, and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
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(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Terry Ray Venable appeals from an order of the district court
affirming the Commissioner’s determination that he is not entitled to Social
Security disability benefits. We affirm.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether his factual
findings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record and
to determine whether he applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted). In the course of
our review, we may “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for
that of the agency.” Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799,
800 (10th Cir. 1991).
Mr. Venable alleged disability as of July 22, 1995, due to back pain and
damage to his left knee. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that
Mr. Venable was not disabled as he retained the residual functional ability to
perform the full range of sedentary work. See, e.g. , Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d
748, 751-52 (10th Cir. 1988).
On appeal, Mr. Venable argues that the ALJ failed to cite specific
legitimate reasons for rejecting his treating physician’s opinion that he was
disabled. Mr. Venable also asserts that the ALJ’s findings regarding his
-2-
credibility and complaints of disabling pain are not supported by substantial
evidence and that the ALJ did not do the analysis required by Luna v. Bowen , 834
F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 19 87) . Finally, Mr. Venable argues that the ALJ failed to
properly develop the record by failing to (1) mention his mental impairments of
depression and insomnia; (2) obtain a consultative mental examination;
(3) complete a psychiatric review technique form and; (4) request all his records. 1
Although Mr. Venable claims disability as of July 1995, the record shows
that he first sought treatment for his allegedly disabling back pain in 1996. Tests
have shown that he has no degenerative joint or disc disease except for scoliosis
at the L5-S1 which was suggested as possibly being the site of his pain. There
was no evidence of any gross muscle spasm or of atrophy. Physicians have noted
that Mr. Venable had full passive range of motion, but limited active flexion and
did not meet any criteria for nerve compression. One treating physician,
Dr. Lewis, concluded, however, that he was “virtually incapacitated by his
fibromyalgia and post-traumatic pain syndrome.” Rec. Vol. 2 at 186. An
examining physician found no physical impairments or deformities.
1
Appellee contends that these last four issues are new on appeal and are
waived. Mr. Venable agrees that the issues are new, but posits that he may raise
them because he has new counsel on appeal who should not be held to any
omissions of prior counsel. Mr. Venable cites no law to support this proposition.
The issues are waived. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994) .
-3-
Mr. Venable argues that the ALJ failed to cite specific legitimate reasons
for rejecting Dr. Lewis’ opinion as required by Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs. , 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995) . “A treating
physician’s opinion must be given substantial weight unless good cause is shown
to disregard it.” Id. at 289-90. Good cause to reject the opinion is shown if the
opinion is not “well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques
and if it is . . . inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.”
Castellano , 26 F.3d at 1029. The treating physician’s opinion as to the ultimate
question of disability is not dispositive. See id.The ALJ complied with these directives and properly rejected Dr. Lewis’
opinion. The opinion is not supported by diagnostic tests. Further, other
substantial evidence in the record as detailed, supra , is inconsistent with
Dr. Lewis’ opinion. Thus, it was not entitled to controlling weight.
Mr. Venable also argues that the ALJ’s findings regarding his credibility
and complaints of disabling pain are not supported by substantial evidence. In
evaluating a claimant’s pain, the ALJ must consider the level of medication the
claimant uses and its effectiveness, the claimant’s attempts to obtain relief, the
frequency of his medical contacts, the nature of his daily activities, his credibility,
“and the consistency or compatibility of nonmedical testimony with objective
medical evidence.” Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995).
-4-
“Credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and
we will not upset such determinations when supported by substantial evidence.”
Diaz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 898 F.2d 774, 777 (10th Cir. 1990). As
Mr. Venable established that he suffers from an impairment which can produce
pain, the ALJ was required to perform this evaluation.
The objective medical evidence does not support a finding that
Mr. Venable’s pain is disabling. In fact, it even appeared to support a finding
that he had exaggerated his symptoms. T he inability to work pain-free is not
sufficient reason to find a claimant disabled. See Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d
802, 807 (10th Cir. 1988). We will not disturb the ALJ’s credibility finding.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-5-