*1 733 agree. We Vi- under Hendrickson. the district mitted Appellant argues IH duties do not fall independent duty it to a of de- olations erroneously court held rules enunciated in indemnity risks guard against within the signing products its Engineer- Bjerk v. Universal engaged transporting in Hendrickson. unique persons Cir.1977). 1314 to market. IH submits products ing Corp., its not an because a is transporter this is error contends that Appellant further is product required ultimate user of the as from allowed full contribution should be the Restatement under 402A of Section disagree. Company. We Transport Clark argues (Second) Appellee of Torts. Wilken announced Supreme The Minnesota Court user of the required that he is a known and 312 Corp., in Lambertson Cincinnati and, such, the ambit product falls within 679, (Minn.1977), 114, N.W.2d 689 Minn. 257 of section 402A. employer owes negligent that a plaintiff’s unnecessary to We find that it is third-party to a defendant contribution under section determine Wilken’s status employer’s to the proportional an amount verdict, jury found special 402A. In the employ but not to exceed negligence, design in its negligent that IH was liability compensation workmen’s er’s total negligence that such Lodestar truck and case, IH entitled In this plaintiff. to the and subse caused Wilken’s accident directly the total amount of to receive credit for duty by Negligence limits quent injuries. compensation liability Clark’s workmen’s es testimony at trial foreseeability. The IH full nothing more. To allow Wilken and products its tablished that IH knew Transport would be contribution from Clark manner; thus, being were loaded in such a of Minnesota an extension impermissible there was sufficient evidence Therefore, the Lambertson rule. law under duty IH owed a judge’s determination that denying not err in full the district court did as Wilken. The to a foreseeable user such IH. contribution to under jury also found that IH was liable reasons we affirm foregoing For the the Lodestar truck section 402A because of the district court. judgment unreasonably dangerous was in a condition Minnesota ordinary user. Under law, if Wilken had been unsuccessful even claim, verdict liability
on the strict sustained
against IH would have been negligence. jury’s finding
based on the Co., 293 Leskey Engineering v. Heath See VASQUEZ, Appellant, Jesse 39, (Minn.1980); Bigham v. N.W.2d 40-41 Co., 892, (Minn. 897 Penney J.C. N.W.2d 1978). SCHWEIKER, Secretary, Richard Health contends that the dis Appellant also Services, Appellee. & Human IH’s claim for denying trict court erred in No. 82-1416. indemnity or full contribution contractual alleges Transport Company. IH Appeals, Clark United States Court of v. Minnesota Power & Eighth that Hendrickson Circuit. Co., Minn.
Light N.W.2d Jan. 1983. Submitted (Minn.1960) applies in this case and Decided March 1983. right of IH to indem clearly establishes Company. The Transport from Clark nity Banc Rehearing En Rehearing and that because IH was district court held 3,1983. May Denied at fault and was ex found to have been its own actions posed liability because of manufacturing the Lode designing truck, indemnity per- is not
star contractual *2 Ulrich, Atty.,
Robert G. U.S. Judith M. Strong, Reddis, Atty., Asst. U.S. Francis Asst. Regional Atty., Dept. Health & Services, Mo., Human Kansas City, ap for pellee.
Larry Mo., Denny, City, O. Kansas for appellant. ROSS,
Before Judge, HENLEY, Circuit FAGG, Judge, Senior Circuit Circuit Judge.
ROSS, Judge. Circuit This is an involving action the review of a disability denial of benefits under the Social Security The Act. district court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 42 405(g), U.S.C. § jurisdiction and we have under U.S.C. question presented 1291. The § whether evidence, is substantial based on the whole, record as Secre- tary’s decision that failed to “disability” demonstrate a as defined Act, Security Social 423(d). 42 U.S.C. § applying disability benefits, Before had ten years worked for at Armco His duties Steel. included main- paint machines, tenance of two booth driv- lift, ing welding, spraying paint. a fork an applica- December 1979 filed tion period disability to establish a and to disability obtain insurance benefits. hospitalization from June Intermittent August year of that revealed Mr. Vas- diabetes, quez high had blood in- flammation of the and alcohol and pep pill Additionally, plaintiff addiction. disorders, complains of various nervous shake, hyperventilate, which cause him headaches, become and suffer dizzy, backaches, pains neck and insomnia. Plain- incapacitated tiff he becomes testified that during spells. these Two doctors substanti- testimony. ated this plain- Mr. extensive di- The testified in undergone response and treatment. that the agnosis appears It tiff could do work such as small diabetes assembler, parts grinding machine have pressure been neutralized diet clerk, operator a crane work light or medication, pep pill and that alcohol checker, examiner, inspector, porter such addiction is remission. Plaintiff bases sexton, laundry or stated that worker. She *3 for on the petition disability payments his are jobs none of these stressful and that all of debilitating effects the nervous disor- in the were available immediate area. ders. The ALJ found that while the medical hearing A was held 1981 be- January in evidence established that suffers Judge. fore the A vo- Administrative Law “anxiety neurosis de- underlying from with following hy- cational was the asked “constant, plaintiff’s pression,” allegation of question: pothetical severe, and unabated was credi- pain” not I want to the you take into account ALJ found not ble. The that was training, education, claimant’s his ex- and prevented maintaining gainful from em- and I perience working background, you any want to assume I will find as a continuous twelve month ployment that matter of fact that suffers the claimant Disability were denied. period. benefits and that the— hypothetical Plaintiff contends that the headaches, and also suffers from he suf- entertained vocational ex- by the depression, fers from and he suffers from concerning period available work for a pert diabetes, but he the diabe- indicates that qualifications afflictions plaintiff’s with control; tes is under that the claimant suf- was deficient omission of upon also was at one dependent time a ficiently demonstrated the evidence. the drugs consumption and that of alco- addition, ALJ’s plaintiff alleges that the has beverages holic caused certain dam- give weight failed to age proper to his of the decision namely, infection liver; pain and that the claimant testimony of two doctors who testified that back, drowsy about his neck and that he’s could not do work. The and he suffers the fre- dizzy spells on findings district court refused to disturb the week; 4 quency per of about to 5 times the ALJ. of and that the claimant has some restric- regard review appellate of a decision On tion, however, any he have re- doesn’t benefits, ing disability the determinative respect walking; striction with he can- whether decision is standard is the ALJ’s not stand for more half hour at than one by substantial evidence based supported time; he a can —he has testified 405(g); whole. the record as a 42 U.S.C. § up any he could lift to 60 without pounds Dept. v. of Secretary also Brand of effect, fa- see exception adverse with the of with tigue; Health, Etc., (8th and he has no restriction 527 respect sitting; impairments but these 1980). aptly par The standard of review is they are such —of such severity Health, v. ticularized in Janka working the prevent would claimant from Welfare, n. 3 589 367-68 Ed. and F.2d namely jobs at he has the two the — Cir.1978): (8th named; one of a machine estab- (a) the claimant has the burden of mill, as a the steel other laborer in claim; (b) Act is remedial lishing his perform where he used to an assortment (c) the liberally; to be and is construed Now, jobs. you opinion, do have an findings the reasonable Secretary’s upon certainty, a as to based reasonable are conclu- inferences drawn from them what alternative the claim- employment they supported by if are substantial sive so, engage in, could if whether ant evidence; (d) is such substantial evidence Missouri, jobs City, exist in Kansas mind evidence as a reasonable relevant area; regions country, or other a accept might adequate numbers? significant 736
conclusion;
(e)
per
must be based on the
week.”
times
The ALJ included in his
whole; (f)
as a
record
determination
hypothetical question substantial evidence
presence
substantial evidence is
reflecting the accurate medical status of
basis;
(g)
be made
aon
case-to-case
the plaintiff
to insure a credible response
where the
it is for
conflicting
evidence
from the vocational expert. Cf. Richardson
the Appeals
on'behalf
Council
Sec-
Perales,
U.S.
S.Ct.
conflicts;
(h)
retary to resolve those
(1971);
Califano,
L.Ed.2d 842
Curtner
statutory
imposes
of disability
definition
(denial
Cir.1978)
F.2d 1389
of benefits
(1)
a three-fold
requirement
be
supported by
evidence).
substantial
This
determinable
medically
physical or
court finds that
the hypothetical question
expect-
mental
which
impairment
can be
put
the expert
adequate,
and that
ed to
death
or which has lasted
[result
the ALJ was entitled to consider the opin-
or can be
to last
expected
for a continu-
ion of the expert as reliable evidence of
period
ous
less
months], (2)
of not
than 12
*4
plaintiff’s
to
capacity work. Janka v. Sec-
be,
that
an inability
engage
Health,
of
retary
Welfare,
Ed.
supra,
and
any
gainful activity,
(3)
substantial
and
quacy hypothetical question pro
pounded expert by to the vocational hypothetical question par
ALJ. The is of importance
ticular in view of the fact the ALJ relied heavily upon response, BATES, Marjorie Appellant, being this a case where is unable v. perform previous work. Jackson v. See America, Schweiker, Appellee. 696 F.2d 631 n. 1 UNITED STATES Harris, 1153, 1155 1983); Martin v. 666 F.2d DECKARD, et Ann Juanita (8th Cir.1981). expert’s A vocational re al., Appellants, sponse hypothetical question to a consti v. only tutes substantial evidence where the hypothetical question precisely sets out all America, Appellee. UNITED STATES physical of the claimant’s mental and limi No. 82-1381. Schweiker, Tenant tations. Schweiker, Appeals, United States Court (8th Cir.1982); Camp Eighth Circuit. (8th Cir.1981). F.2d case, In this when the vocational Dec. 1982. Submitted Vasquez’ physical asked to consider im- 8, 1983. Decided March “depression” pairments including — 4 to “dizzy spells frequency on the about was not told that per 5 times week” —she depression
his and dizziness have spells