Christina James, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.d., Secretary of Health and Humanservices, Defendant-appellee, 962 F.2d 17 (10th Cir. 1992)

Before EBEL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,^*  District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^** 

KANE, District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Christina James appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Secretary's decision to deny her application for social security disability benefits. We affirm.

In her application for benefits, James alleged that she was disabled due to hypertension, kidney problems, probable back cancer, and emotional problems.¹  At a hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ), James alleged that she also had diabetes and arthritic problems with her hands, elbows, knees, and ankles. The ALJ found that James was not disabled at step four²  because she could return to her past relevant work.

On appeal, James argues that the ALJ's determination was not based on substantial evidence. In particular, she objects to the ALJ's findings numbers six and seven.³  James states she was ineffectively represented by a paralegal and, therefore, under Dixon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 506 (10th Cir. 1987), the ALJ was required to develop James' case for her. James argues that the ALJ did not fulfill this duty because he did not ask questions regarding her daily activities and medications beyond those asked by the paralegal. Finally, James argues that the record was not properly developed regarding her complaints of pain.

"Our review of social security administration cases is usually quite limited. 'The Secretary's decision must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. The reviewing court does not weigh the evidence and may not substitute its discretion for that of the agency.' " Sorenson v. Bowen, 888 F.2d 706, 710-11 (10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Cagle v. Califano, 638 F.2d 219, 220 (10th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted)). Substantial evidence is " 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' " Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

James is now forty-nine years old. She has a ninth grade education and has obtained her GED and completed vocational training as a medication aide. She has worked both as a nurse's aide and a medication aide. James alleges disability since 1984.

The record shows that James has the following impairments: (1) hypertension; (2) diabetes; (3) reflux esophagitis; (4) degenerative arthritis; and (5) back pain. James' hypertension has been successfully treated with medication, and there is no medical evidence of any end organ damage. James' diabetes has also apparently been treated successfully with diet only without any resulting disability. Therefore, these impairments cannot be the basis for any finding of disability.

The symptoms James experiences associated with reflux esophagitis are relieved when she adheres to the prescribed course of treatment. The record shows James does not follow the prescribed medication regime, apparently due both to side effects she actually experiences and those she fears she will experience.

Social Security regulations provide that claimants who fail, without good reason, to follow prescribed treatment will be denied benefits if it appears the treatment can restore the claimant's ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1530, 416.930;⁴  see also Teter v. Heckler, 775 F.2d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 1985). James' symptoms can be relieved. Her failure to follow the prescribed treatment cannot be excused.⁵  Further, even untreated, nothing in the record indicates that this impairment is disabling. Therefore, the ALJ correctly found that James is not disabled on the basis of this impairment.

Degenerative arthritis is manifested mainly in James' hands by joint stiffness for two hours in the morning and episodic joint pain, swelling, and redness in various joints. Medical evidence shows that disease manifestations are mild with minimal impairment only in her hands. The ALJ determined that this impairment was not disabling but did consider it in finding number six where he held that James could not perform jobs requiring fine dexterity.

James argues that her impairments, in combination with the pain she experiences, are disabling. Both reflux esophagitis and degenerative arthritis can be expected to produce pain, and both have been identified as possible causes of James' back pain. See Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161, 164 (10th Cir. 1987) (claimant must produce objective medical evidence showing an impairment " 'which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain ... alleged' ") (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (5) (A)).

The ALJ found that James' testimony regarding the severity of her pain was not credible. " [W]e generally treat credibility determinations made by an ALJ as binding upon review." Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 807 (10th Cir. 1988). Our review of the record supports the ALJ's determination of credibility. Notes by various physicians indicate that James' complaints of pain appear to be intensified by her somatization and hypochondria. While these reports might, in some instances, support a finding of disability, none contains any indication that James' pain is of such severity as to be disabling. In fact, the record contains no indication by any physician that James is disabled for any reason.

While James does experience pain, an inability to work pain-free is not a sufficient reason to hold that she is disabled. Id. No evidence in the record supports a finding that James could not return to her past relevant work.

James argues that the ALJ did not fulfill his duty of inquiry. James appears to argue that the ALJ was required to further examine her in order to obtain sufficient evidence to find her disabled. The ALJ gave James every opportunity to offer further statements regarding her condition. Further, the burden of proof remained on James to prove that she was disabled. See Williams, 844 F.2d at 751 n. 2. James offered no objective evidence supporting her position that she could not return to her previous work. Indeed, no physician opined that James was disabled in any manner. Because the ALJ determined that James was not entirely credible, additional subjective testimony would not have helped her meet her burden. The ALJ proceeded properly.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.