Unita Crutcher v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, Donna Shalala, Secretary
Docket: 93-6261
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 7, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Citation of unpublished opinions is permitted if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, provided that a copy is attached to the citing document or made available during oral argument. This policy is in effect due to a General Order suspending the 10th Circuit Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995.
In the case of Unita Crutcher v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Secretary's denial of Crutcher's claim for disability benefits. Crutcher's applications for benefits submitted in 1983 and 1985 were denied, leading her to file a new application in May 1988, claiming disability since June 10, 1978, primarily due to asthma and arthritis.
During a hearing on July 27, 1989, Crutcher, aged fifty-one with a seventh-grade education, testified that her asthma was managed to some extent by medication but still caused significant symptoms, and her arthritis caused widespread pain. Her previous employment involved light physical labor and exposure to dust, which she claimed she could no longer manage.
Medical records revealed a history of asthma since 1962, with varying levels of control noted in earlier years. Although pulmonary function studies indicated some degree of impairment, none met the criteria for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A consulting physician’s assessment in 1988 indicated that Crutcher's asthma would limit her ability to work in dusty or fume-filled environments and restrict her physical activity to light tasks.
Crutcher also experienced worsening asthma leading to hospital admissions in late 1988 and early 1989. Additionally, she was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis in 1982, but examinations showed no significant limitations in joint motion. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's findings and that the reasons for rejecting the treating physician's opinion were legitimate, affirming the denial of benefits.
Dr. Dougherty identified some limitations in the plaintiff's motion, particularly regarding her ability to lift or carry anything heavier than light objects. A psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Gary Moore on August 2, 1988, found no significant mental disorder. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the plaintiff’s disability insurance claim based on res judicata, determining she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work, and thus denied her claim. The Appeals Council also denied the claim, which was subsequently affirmed by the district court.
The review examines whether the Secretary's findings are backed by substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied. The Secretary follows a five-step process for evaluating disability claims. The plaintiff contests the Secretary's determination that her mental impairments are not severe, defined as not significantly limiting basic work activities. The findings are supported by the plaintiff’s testimony and Dr. Moore's evaluation.
The plaintiff also challenges the Secretary’s conclusion at step four, asserting that her combined impairments meet the obesity listing criteria. However, she did not raise this issue in the district court, precluding its review. Additionally, the plaintiff argues that the Secretary improperly assessed Dr. Chris Puckett's opinion, who claimed she met the respiratory impairment criteria in a letter dated March 23, 1989. The Secretary is required to give substantial weight to a treating physician's opinion but must provide legitimate reasons for any rejection. The Secretary cited the absence of a supporting pulmonary function study, higher subsequent readings, and lack of evidence for total disability as reasons for disregarding Dr. Puckett's opinion.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, noting that the listing for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires specific forced expiratory volume and maximum voluntary ventilation metrics, which the plaintiff did not meet. The plaintiff's insured status for disability benefits lapsed on September 30, 1983, necessitating proof of disability before that date, while her eligibility for supplemental security income commenced in May 1988 following her application.
