Buras v. Apfel

Full title: Jonathan Buras v. Kenneth S. Apfel

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Nov 28, 2000

Civil Action No. 00-654, Section "N" (E.D. La. Nov. 28, 2000)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 00-654, Section "N"

November 28, 2000.

ORDER AND REASONS

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Jonathan Buras ("Buras") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") decision that Buras is not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. For the following reasons, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

BACKGROUND

On January 31, 1996, Jonathan Buras applied for social security benefits, claiming that he was disabled due to a back injury. At the time of his injury, Buras was working as a heavy equipment mechanic. His application was denied both initially and on reconsideration. On December 9, 1997, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that Buras had severe degenerative disk disease but that he was not disabled because he could still perform light work. The Appeals Council denied Buras' request for review, and the ALJ's ruling became the Commissioner's final decision. Buras now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Commissioner's decision and (2) whether the decision comports with relevant legal standards. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Under the Social Security Act, an individual is disabled only when he has a physical or mental impairment which has lasted or can be expected to last for at least 12 months and which is so severe that the claimant is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A). Substantial gainful activity is work that involves significant and productive activities for pay or profit. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.910.

To determine whether a claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act, the Commissioner must follow the five-step analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920:

(1) Is the claimant working? If so, she is not disabled.

(2) If the claimant is not working, is her impairment severe? If it is not, she is not disabled.

(3) If the impairment is severe, does it meet or equal a listed impairment in the appendix to the regulations? If so, the claimant is disabled.

(4) If the impairment does not meet the criteria in the appendix, can the claimant do her past relevant work? If she can, she is not disabled.

(5) If the impairment does not meet the appendix criteria and the claimant cannot do her past relevant work, can the claimant perform other work in the national economy? If she can, then she is not disabled.

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.

In the case at bar, Buras contends that the Commissioner erred in the third and final steps: in finding that Buras' back injury does not meet the criteria in the appendix, and in finding that Buras can perform other work in the national economy.

1. Medical Listing 1.05C

Although the Commissioner found that Buras has severe degenerative disk disease, he decided that Buras' back injury does not meet the criteria of Medical Listing 1.05C. Under this Listing, a disabling back injury includes:

Other vertebrogenic disorders (e.g., herniated nucleus puplosus, spinal stenosis) with the following persisting for at least 3 months despite prescribed therapy and expected to last 12 months. With both 1 and 2:

1. Pain, muscle spasm, and significant limitation of motion in the spine; and

2. Appropriate radicular distribution of significant motor loss with muscle weakness and sensory and reflex loss.

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.

Buras contends that the record as a whole proves that his back injury is a disabling impairment under Listing 1.05C. Buras points to testimony that he regularly takes Vicodin for pain and that he has complained of numbness and tingling in his legs. In addition, he refers to an MRI taken in 1994 that shows a disc protrusion in Buras' spine.

However, the Commissioner may base his decision "on medical evidence only. Any medical findings in the evidence must be supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b). In the case at bar, no clinical or scientific evidence proves that Buras' injury is sufficiently severe to be a disability. Drs. Charles Billings and George A. Murphy, Buras' treating physicians, each conducted orthopedic examinations. Both doctors concluded that Buras is capable of light or sedentary work, and Buras presented no medical evidence to contradict those conclusions. Furthermore, Dr. Billings conducted radiographic studies and found only a mild bulging in Buras' spine. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision that Buras' injury does not meet or equal a listed impairment is AFFIRMED.

2. Maintaining Gainful Employment

Although the Commissioner found that Buras' impairment is not severe enough to be a disability, he decided that Buras cannot perform his previous job as a heavy equipment mechanic. However, the Commissioner determined that Buras could perform other work in the national economy. Buras' second challenge is that the Commissioner failed to consider whether he is able to maintain another job for a significant period of time.

In Singletary v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1996), the Fifth Circuit held that.

A finding that a claimant is able to engage in substantial gainful activity requires more than a simple determination that the claimant can find employment and that he can physically perform certain jobs; it also requires a determination that the claimant can hold whatever job he finds for a significant period of time.

Id. at 822. However, the Singletary court created guidelines for determining mental, not physical, disability. In Leidler v. Sullivan, 885 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit explained that "the second lesson of Singletary is that the [Commissioner] must consider whether an applicant with a serious mental illness remains able to engage in substantial gainful activity when, although he is capable of performing work, he cannot maintain regular employment." Id. at 292-93 (emphasis added). The Singletary court was concerned with a claimant who could perform a job physically but not mentally. Unlike the claimant inSingletary who suffered from severe mental illness, Buras suffers from a back injury. Since Buras suffers from a physical illness and not a mental injury, the Commissioner was not required to consider whether Buras could maintain employment. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision that Buras can perform other work in the national economy is AFFIRMED.

CONCLUSION

Because the Court finds that the Commissioner of Social Security did not err in deciding that Buras is not disabled, the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.