Unpublished Dispositionjames Cox, Plaintiff-appellant v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-appellee, 888 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 888 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir. 1989) Nov. 8, 1989

Before KEITH, MILBURN and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


Plaintiff, James Cox ("Cox"), appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the defendant, Secretary of Health and Human Services, denying Cox's application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits.

The magistrate concluded, and the district court agrees, that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision. The magistrate and the district court also rejected Cox's claim that he is disabled based on 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing Section 1.13. The district court concluded that there is substantial evidence to indicate that Cox's chronic pain is not sufficient to preclude all substantial gainful activity, and that he was, therefore, not disabled.

We are bound by this Circuit's previous interpretation of Listing Section 1.13's language in Lapinsky v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 857 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1988). After careful review of the record and briefs submitted in this case, we find no error warranting reversal. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the district court, the Honorable Avern Cohn, Eastern District of Michigan, based upon the Report and Recommendation submitted to that court by Magistrate Marcia G. Cooke.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.