*1 Before MERRITT and Judges; EDWARDS, Circuit Senior Judge. Circuit
MERRITT, Judge. evidence, In this substantial Social Secur- ity plaintiff appeals case from the Secretary’s application denial of his for dis- ability Secretary, through benefits. The an judge Appeals administrative law and the Council, per- determined that Woods cannot job form his former as a forklift driver in a factory but that he can a limited range work and has the skills to be a car driver. We do not supports believe the evidence the Secre- tary’s conclusion and reverse and remand for benefits.
507 clearly finding estab a disability. The medical evidence of total For example, Woods, Mondry gave Dr. hearing-impaired, following opinion: that a 60- the lishes man, year-old history suffers from a of 57-year-old Mr. Woods is a white male problems high pain, back heart and blood who had an acute myocardi- interior wall McGuire, pressure. explained by Dr. As al infarction on 12-11-82 and now he has surgery incapacitating had for a disc in angina pectoris herniated and he is totally only partially point 1981 successful disabled from the which was of of view coronary artery patient, disease. The only temporarily and lessened his back in addition, totally is pain. Tylenol disabled from Woods must take #3 fre status post lumbosacral surgery disc and he quently. Congard He for also takes heart continues to have incapacitating severe problems Dyazide high pres and for blood low backache with restriction of motion. pain prevents sure. His back Woods from hypertension____ He also has He is to- standing, walking lying position or in one tally disabled as I stated. periods for normal of time. He is unable to go up and down stairs because weakness JA 6.
in legs only his and back. He can walk any We do find medical or clinical not. a cane. with findings which are inconsistent with this view of Mr. Woods’ condition.
The ALJ’s error stems from the fact that upon by he relied a statement the vocation- Accordingly, judgment the of the District expert 3,500 sedentary al that there are Court is reversed with instructions to re- jobs in-plant vehicle drivers in the De- Secretary mand the case to the for an troit area to conclude that the vocational opin- award of benefits consistent with this expert that could work as a believed Woods ion.
messenger car driver. This reliance on the Judge, concurring: expert
vocational is in conflict with the main thrust of expert’s the vocational testi- Judge The Law in Administrative this mony. expert The vocational testified: “I recently” case found that “until before the asked, given testimony his was ... wheth- hearing, “driving regu- claimant had been perform past er or not he could his relevant cane, larly,” and that his use of a used my work. And answer was no. I was condition, pre- did because his back not given testimony or not his asked whether driving clude his in some form of “seden- past any and his relevant work was there work,” tary although prevent it would his I said other work he could do. And no.” continuing work as a “fork lifter.” The Appendix Joint Appeals Council found “no basis” under regulations granting the review and/or When read in context the vocational ex- Magistrate of the decision. reversal AU’s pert’s testimony support does not the con- Carlson, appeal, recommended that expert clusion attributed to the vocational Secretary be affirmed for the argument At oral the attor- the ALJ. since, reasons, among Mondry’s other “Dr. ney Secretary for the conceded as much. tardy report properly given was little She conceded that the AU decision cannot weight as his unsup- conclusions were supported present on the record be ported by any objective clinical test re- recommended a remand. Judge Guy approved report sults.” the magistrate. and recommendation of the present medical in the The record shows that Woods cannot light In of the record and the conclusions it, work or work as a previously I of those who had reviewed vehicle do not believe a remand disposed agree sug- driver. We with the to initial necessary. gestion attorney Secretary is evidence submitted of the for the Mahadevan, Mondry, appearing Drs. and McGuire court in before this that view of significant inconsistency constitutes medical evi in the some of the dence, expert reports clearly support hearing vocational at the AU there and their all be a remand. When the
should Secretary argu- at oral conceded ment, however, may that claimant enti- present
tled benefits based record, I I concluded that would not dis-
agree majority with the view that the deci- *3 and that
sions should be reversed benefits awarded. The concession the Assist- Attorney apparently United ant States based Woods’ that he was regu- forced use a cane had used it larly since he out of hospi- “came tal....” benefits, not based on Dr.
I would award Mondry’s unsupported conclusion dated March, 1983, but rather Dr. Mahade- 1, 1982, July opinion dated the other van’s bearing upon Woods claims of dis- stated, abling pain, and, concessions Secretary’s representative made argument. oral America,
UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, HOUSE, Jr., George Defendant-Appellant. United States Court Circuit. Seventh 20, 1986. Argued Oct. 29, 1986. Decided Oct.