Unpublished Dispositiongary E. Reed, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-appellee, 908 F.2d 973 (6th Cir. 1990)

Plaintiff Gary E. Reed ("Reed") appeals from the district court's September 11, 1989 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant the Secretary of Health & Human Services ("the Secretary"). Reed contends that the district court's finding that he is capable of performing significant gainful employment is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Reed argues that the district court failed to correctly evaluate and consider the amount and severity of his pain. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

Reed's alleged disability stems from an August 1984 back injury. He states that he incurred this injury while attempting to stand up after working in a bent-over position in a low coal mine. Although he experienced lower back pain and weakness in his legs, Reed suffered no acute injury or trauma to his back. There are no physical signs of any condition that would cause more than mild to moderate pain. Furthermore, Reed is not always in pain. Progress reports prepared by Dr. Joseph H. Rapier, Reed's treating physician, revealed that in September 1984 much of the numbness in Reed's right leg was gone. Joint Appendix at 171. Exhibit 20, Submitted during Oral Hearing, Reed v. Secretary of HHS, (No. 88-328). Later reports in 1985 and 1987 indicate that Reed was progressing quite well and was planning to return to work. Id. at 170.

The standard for evaluating pain requires objective medical evidence of an impairment and either: (a) objective evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from the impairment; or (b) evidence that the impairment is of such severity that it reasonably can be expected to produce the alleged disabling pain. McCormick v. Secretary of HHS, 861 F.2d 998, 1002-1003 (6th Cir. 1988). In evaluating claims of disability resulting from pain, the relevant regulations direct us to consider all symptoms and the extent to which they are supported by medical signs and laboratory findings.¹  If medical symptoms or findings fail to support a medical condition consistent with the claimant's pain, then the pain is not disabling. See Duncan v. Secretary of HHS, 801 F.2d 847, 854 (6th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff's spinal X-rays failed to show a severe condition and the evidence revealed that he had no neurological defects and could do light work).

We find that the district court correctly determined that Reed does not suffer disabling pain. Although Reed experiences some moderate pain, the evidence does not support a finding of severe disabling pain. Moreover, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") carefully considered the medical evidence and Reed's complaints of pain.²  The ALJ properly concluded that Reed's ability to work was not limited to a disabling degree.³ 

Having carefully considered the record, the briefs submitted in this case, and the oral arguments, we find no error warranting reversal. We, therefore, AFFIRM the September 11, 1989 memorandum opinion and order of the Honorable G. Wix Unthank, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.