Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


May 16, 1983


The opinion of the court was delivered by: NICKERSON


NICKERSON, District Judge

 Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405 to review a final determination of defendant denying plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Following a hearing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 5, 1982 concluded that plaintiff was not disabled.The Appeals Council approved.

 Plaintiff, 62 years old at the time of the hearing, had a high school education and had worked for 49 years as a longshoreman. On April 15, 1981 he ceased work and then filed the present application, alleging disability due to chronic bronchitis, emphysema, enlarged pulmonary artery, arthritis of spine, shoulder and hands, hardening of arteries in neck, missing cartilege of left knee, and 25% hearing loss. At the hearing plaintiff testified that he was practically blind in one eye, had three herniated discs as well as arthritis, emphysema, pain in his back, dizziness, fear of paralysis, and enlarged pulmonary arteries.

 In his decision the ALJ said that plaintiff's impairments were "mild" and were "the result of the aging process" but were not "of sufficient severity to prevent gainful employment if the claimant is willing to engage in work activities." The ALJ made no finding as to whether plaintiff could return to his work as a longshoreman, work the ALJ characterized as "heavy to medium unskilled work."

 Dr. Harold Coppersmith, plaintiff's treating doctor, made a musculoskeletal medical report dated June 5, 1981, an oral report on February 2, 1982, and a written letter report dated March 12, 1982. In his initial report Dr. Coppersmith found plaintiff unable to work at his usual job "which entails lifting heavy boxes." The doctor's diagnosis, as set forth in the two later reports, included cervical spondylosis, possibly caused or aggravated by a head injury in November of 1980, mild essential hypertension, coronary heart disease with mild angina, chronic bronchitis, varicose veins, and dizziness of undetermined origin. The doctor recommended a neurological consultation to attempt to find the cause of the dizziness. The doctor concluded that plaintiff was unable to perform heavy work due to spondylosis.

 The ALJ made no reference to the report of Dr. Stephen Gilbert, a consulting neurologist, who examined plaintiff on April 8, 1982. Dr. Gilbert's impression was that plaintiff had evidence of a labyrinthine disturbance with neurosensory deficits and had a cervical radiculitis. The doctor concluded: "The consternation of these two symptoms rendered the patient totally disabled. Patient is unable to look downward or upward in order to perform any job, and is unable to lift."

 The ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled was based upon a finding that the plaintiff was able "to do basic work activities that is, abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs" as described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 (1981) (Tr. 9). The ALJ thus denied plaintiff's claim at the second step in the five-step sequence that the regulations require to be utilized in evaluating disability claims. Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982). At the second step the claimant has the burden of proving a severe impairment that "significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." Id.

 In finding that plaintiff did not have a "severe impairment" the ALJ appears to have misapplied 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. Whatever the degree of plaintiff's impairment there is no substantial evidence to show that he could return to longshoreman's work, which involves heavy lifting. The defendant in its brief appears to concede that plaintiff could not do the heavy lifting required of a longshoreman, and the ALJ made no finding to the contrary. Instead the ALJ appears to have construed the regulations to mean that a claimant does not have a "severe impairment" if he can do "most jobs."

 The pertinent regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521, reads as follows:

 What we mean by an impairment that is not severe.

 (a) Non-severe impairment. An impairment is not severe if it does not signficantly limit your physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.

 (b) Basic work activities. When we talk about basic work activities, we mean the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.