Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

James R. Odle v. Margaret H. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services

James R. Odle v. Margaret H. Heckler, Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 707 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1983)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1983-06-03
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that denial of benefits 7 was proper where the claimant’s impairments were responsive to medication
  • recognizing that an 20 ALJ may consider evidence of “control of . . . pain that was satisfactory”
  • concluding substantial evidence supported a denial of benefits and noting that treatment addressed claimant’s impairments
  • noting that an ALJ may 15 consider whether treatment produced a fair response or control of pain which was satisfactory
  • emphasizing that the medical evidence established the plaintiff had a good response to treatments for his underlying impairments
  • affirming a denial of 16 benefits and noting that the claimant’s impairments were responsive to medication
  • affirming a denial of benefits and noting that the claimant’s impairments 2 were responsive to medication
  • affirming a denial of benefits and noting that the 25 1

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James R. Odle v. Margaret H. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
90 opinions
ODLE v. HECKLER,707 F.2d 439(9th Cir. 1983)
JAMES R. ODLE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MARGARET H. HECKLER,fn*SECRETARY
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 81-4227.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 11, 1982.
Decided June 3, 1983.
Lois E. Strain, Visalia, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Gary L. Floerchinger, Dept. of Health Human Services, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.Page 440
Before GOODWIN, SNEED, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
[1] The Supreme Court has just announced its decision inHecklerv. Campbell,___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66, (1983) which we conclude controls here.

[2] InCampbell,the claimant applied for disability benefits because of a poor back and hypertension. Ms. Campbell was denied benefits and then requested a hearing pursuant to the statutory provision.42 U.S.C. § 405(b). The Administrative Law Judge received testimony and documentary medical evidence and determined Campbell was unable to perform her past work of a hotel maid, but retained the physical capacity to do light work. The ALJ then made findings of Ms. Campbell's age, education, and the nature of her prior employment. Applying the medical-vocational guidelines (20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2), the judge found jobs existed that a person with Campbell's qualifications could perform and concluded she was not disabled.

[3] Odle challenged the regulations on the same grounds rejected inCampbell.The ALJ made findings after hearing testimony from both claimant and his wife and receiving into evidence medical reports and other exhibits. The ALJ found Odle to be 42 years old in 1979, had at least a "limited education" — citing three different sources with ninth grade, tenth grade, and four years of high school completed, respectively, and Odle's prior work experience of farm work as a foreman and cotton ginner to be "semi-skilled," heavy work. Exhibit I, HEW Transcript, 7-79-318-CIV, pp. 12-18, Decision in the Case of James R. Odle, May 22, 1979, p. 6.

[4] The "Decision" discusses the impairments under which appellant suffers in light of the medical evidence before him. The exertional impairments included osteomyelitis in several of his ribs, osteoarthritis in the left knee, and a peptic ulcer. Each was considered, the treatment involved, and the current condition of Mr. Odle in light of the malady. Medical evidence existed to establish appellant had a "fair response" with antibiotics to his rib condition, the swelling of his left knee subsided, and control of that pain was satisfactory. Hypertension and the peptic ulcer were controlled with drugs and antacids, respectively.

[5] Non-exertional impairments included deafness, dizziness, and drug dependence. A hearing aid returned hearing to within "almost normal limits." Dizziness problems remained to some extent and were likely to be recurrent. Drug abuse was satisfactorily controlled through a treatment program. These impairments were found not to significantly limit Odle's exertional capabilities.

[6] There is substantial evidence in support of these conclusions. Though this circuit has precedent requiring the enunciation of "specific jobs" for which the claimant is physically capable of performing,1Campbellexpressly rejected the necessity of this finding in circumstances where the "grids" apply. ___ U.S. at ___, 103 S.Ct. at 1958.

[7] Odle's other claims and arguments were either not raised below or have no merit.

[8] Accordingly, the final decision of the Secretary denying Odle disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security insurance benefits is

[9] AFFIRMED.

[10] Each party will bear his own costs on appeal.Page 441
  1. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1), we substitute the name Margaret H. Heckler, successor to the original appellee Patricia Roberts Harris, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. ↩
  2. Hall v. Secretary of Health, Education Welfare,602 F.2d 1372, 1377 (9th Cir. 1979).

    The Second Circuit and four other circuits also had case law requiring a finding of specific alternate jobs the claimant was capable of performing.Decker v. Harris,647 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1981);Rossi v. Califano,602 F.2d 55, 57 (3d Cir. 1979);Hephner v. Mathews,574 F.2d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1978);Taylorv. Weinberger,512 F.2d 664, 665, 666 (4th Cir. 1975); andHernandez v. Weinberger,493 F.2d 1120, 1122 (1st Cir. 1974). ↩