ALTON G. HARWELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

MARGARET M. HECKLER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1984-07-06

No. 83-8543

735 F.2d 1292 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1984) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's finding of no disability, affirming the denial of benefits.

Facts & Procedural History

A 59-year-old claimant suffering from back and heart problems appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Treating Physician'S Opinion Residual Functional Capacity Substantial Evidence Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Treating Physician'S Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal we review the denial of disability insurance benefits to a 59 year-old who suffers from back and heart problems. The magistrate recommended that the district court reverse the Secretary, but the court concluded that the determination was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed. We affirm.

Claimant asserts that the Administrative Law Judge improperly gave greater weight to the reports of the consulting physicians than to those by the treating doctors. “Unless there is good cause shown to the contrary, the testimony of the treating physician must be accorded substantial weight.” Fruge v. Harris, 631 F. 2d 1244, 1246 (5th Cir.1980). At the same time, the AU may reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion. Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F. 2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B). Furthermore, even if the evidence preponderates against the Secretary’s decision, we must affirm if substantial evidence supports the disability determination. Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F. 2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.1983). After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s finding of no disability. See Watkins v. Schweiker, 667 F. 2d 954, 958 n. 1 (11th Cir.1982).

In his report the AU stated

while the claimant may experience some discomfort on occasion, the essentially benign objective medical record, lack of regular use of potent pain medicatinn [sic], description of daily activities as well as claimant’s demeanor and testimony at the hearing mitigate [sic] against claimant’s allegation of constant, severe pain.

Harwell also argued that the AU erred in concluding that claimant was capable of sedentary work, had previously been employed in skilled or semi-skilled jobs and had transferable skills. The reports of the consulting doctors provide substantial evidence for the AU’s RFC finding. Furthermore, the vocational expert who testified at the second hearing before the AU concluded that Harwell’s prior employment in the grocery business constituted work requiring some skill and that the claimant’s skills were transferable to other positions in the grocery business.² Rec. at 102. This testimony provides substantial evidence for the AU’s findings on these issues.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

2 Rec. at 13. Claimant asserts that the AU erroneously required objective medical evidence to substantiate his testimony about pain and improperly engaged in “sit and squirm” jurisprudence. However, the record shows that the AU properly considered a variety of factors, including the claimant’s use of pain-killers and his daily activities, in making the finding about pain.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1986)

…could not return to his former work precluded the ALJ from reaching a contrary conclusion. DISCUSSION If substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s disability determination, we must affirm the decision of the district court. Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F. 2d 1292, 1293 (11th Cir.1984). We thus examine the evidence upon which the Secretary relied. Initially, the AU inquired extensively into appellant’s duties in his former job. Appellant’s testimony indicated that none of the duties of a coal handling foreman…
Williams v. Apfel, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 1999)

…. Even if the court finds that the evidence weighs against the SSA’s decision, the court must affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Allen v. Schweiker, 642 F.2d 799, 800 (5th Cir.1981); see also Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir.1984); Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir.1990). The court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment, even if the court finds that the weight of the evidence is against the SSA’s decision. Martin, 894…
Jones v. Saul (N.D. Fla. 2020)

…oc. Sec., 719 F. App’x 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). “[T]he mere existence of the[ ] impairments does 20 A claimant’s daily activities may be considered in evaluating and discrediting complaints of disabling pain. Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F. 2d 1292, 1293 (11th Cir. 1984). not reveal the extent to which they limit [the claimant’s] ability to work or undermine the ALJ’s determination in that regard.” 21 Moore, 405 F. 3d at 1213 n.6. “Disability is determined by the effect an impairment has on…

Authorities Cited

Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983)
Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir. 1981)
Fruge v. Harris, 631 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1980)
Watkins v. Schweiker, 667 F.2d 954 (11th Cir. 1982)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw