Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles W. Tucker v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., 937 F.2d 617, 10th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Charles Tucker appealed a district court decision affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services' ruling that Tucker was not entitled to disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision for the same reasons, emphasizing that a claimant's testimony of severe disability must be supported by medical evidence from the relevant time period. The court found the opinion of one doctor, who did not examine Tucker until two years after the date of alleged disability, was properly rejected as speculative about Tucker's medical condition during the earlier period.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-06-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 937 F.2d 617 Docket: 89-3322

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Tucker appealed a district court decision affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services' ruling that Tucker was not entitled to disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision for the same reasons, emphasizing that a claimant's testimony of severe disability must be supported by medical evidence from the relevant time period. The court found the opinion of one doctor, who did not examine Tucker until two years after the date of alleged disability, was properly rejected as speculative about Tucker's medical condition during the earlier period.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    Charles W. Tucker v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., 937 F.2d 617, 10th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Tucker appealed a district court decision affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services' ruling that Tucker was not entitled to disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision for the same reasons, emphasizing that a claimant's testimony of severe disability must be supported by medical evidence from the relevant time period. The court found the opinion of one doctor, who did not examine Tucker until two years after the date of alleged disability, was properly rejected as speculative about Tucker's medical condition during the earlier period.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    937 F.

    2d 617

    Unpublished Disposition
    NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished
    opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value
    and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the
    doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral
    estoppel.
    Charles W. TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D. Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 89-3322.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    June 22, 1990.

    Before STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit


    Judges.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit 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 cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Charles W. Tucker appeals an order of the federal district court affirming the
    decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that Tucker was not
    entitled to disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 401 et seq. For reasons that are substantially the same as those set forth in
    the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and the district court, we
    affirm. We emphasize that the claimant's testimony of the existence of a severe
    disability as of September 1, 1984 must be supported by medical evidence and
    that it is within the authority of the ALJ to reject the conclusory opinion of Dr.

    Allen McLain on this point when Dr. McLain did not examine the client until
    1986 and was only speculating as to the extent of Tucker's medical problems
    two years earlier. See Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 197 (10th Cir.1988) (citing
    Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir.1987)).
    3

    AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
    used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
    the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
    Cir.R. 36.3

    You might also like