Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kataria v. Chater, 10th Cir. (1997)
Kataria v. Chater, 10th Cir. (1997)
OCT 1 1997
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
USHA KATARIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration, *
No. 97-5050
(D.C. No. 95-CV-730)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security, is substituted for Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social
Security, as the defendant in this action.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
Claimant Usha Kataria appeals from an order of the district court affirming
the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application
for supplemental security income benefits. We review the Commissioner's
decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether
the correct legal standards were applied. See Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d
1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). The Commissioners factual findings are conclusive
when supported by substantial evidence, see 42 U.S.C. 405(g), which is
adequate relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a
conclusion, see Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
In her application for benefits filed in March 1993, claimant contended that
she was disabled due to a variety of ailments including bone spurs in her heels,
goiter, hypertension and ulcer disease. Subsequently she was diagnosed as having
diabetes. Relying on the opinion of a medical expert who had reviewed
claimants medical records, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the
goiter, hypertension, ulcer disease and diabetes were adequately controlled
through medication and thus were not severe impairments. He found her bone
spurs to be severe impairments, but also found they did not prevent her from
performing the full range of sedentary work. Because claimant had no past
relevant work, the case proceeded to step five of the five-part sequential process
for determining disability. See 20 C.F.R. 416.920. Relying on the Medical-2-
Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, the ALJ determined
that claimant was not disabled and denied her application for benefits. The
Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJs determination the final
decision of the Commissioner.
On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJs finding that her goiter,
hypertension, ulcer disease, and diabetes were not severe impairments because
they were well controlled with medication is not supported by substantial
evidence because the ALJ failed to consider the fact that claimant could not
afford and therefore was not taking the medication necessary to control these
ailments. She further contends that because this case reached step five, the
burden was on the Commissioner to show that the impairments were adequately
controlled.
Ordinarily, a claimant cannot be found disabled when her impairment can
be controlled through medical treatment and she unjustifiably refuses to undergo
that treatment. See 20 C.F.R. 416.930; Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1107
(10th Cir. 1985). Claimant does not question the ALJs conclusion that her
impairments can be readily controlled through use of prescribed medications. She
contends instead that (1) she did not take the medications, and (2) the reason she
did not take them was because she could not afford them, which may be a
justifiable excuse, see id.
-3-
-5-
Id. at 14. The ALJ did not address whether claimant was continuing to take her
medications, nor whether she failed to take them because she could not afford
them.
The evidence is at best inconclusive whether claimant in fact failed to take
her prescribed medications, and whether if she did not take them, it was because
she could not afford them, particularly in light of their apparent availability from
free clinics. We disagree with claimants contention that the absence of evidence
from October 1993 to January 1995 showing that she did take her medications
necessarily means that she did not take them, that the reason she did not take them
was because of her poverty, or even that she continued to experience symptoms.
Moreover, her contention that the lack of treatment for her thyroid disorder
caused her diabetes is not supported by any medical evidence. We conclude that
the ALJ did not commit reversible error in finding that claimants goiter,
hypertension, ulcer disease and diabetes were well controlled by medications.
AFFIRMED.
-6-