Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jackson v. Chater

\ Supreme Court, U.S. .

FILED

96 268 AUG 161996

No. bf —FHE-BLERK

“peter tie en rn rc rr RNS EERE SET ee Se ee mace

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1995

RAYMOND JACKSON

Petitioner,

Vv.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Raymond Jackson

Counsel of Record

225 Conrad Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36110

(334) 265-8801

August 15, 1996

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

In the face of conflicting Circuit Court standards, as

they relate to the Congressionally-mandated requirements of 42

USCS 416(i)(1) and (2); 42 USCS 423(d)(1)(A), (1)B),

(2)(A), (2)(B) and 5(B); 42 USCS 405(b)(1), 42 USCS

421(K)(1) and (C\(3)(a), 42 USCS 405(g); 42 USCS

405(U)(1)(B); 20 CFR 404.1520a(1); 20 CFR 404.1523: 20

CFR 404.1525; 20 CFR 404.1526; 20 CFR Part 404, Subpt P,

Section 2.00(A)(7), App. 1; 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,

Section 2.03(B), App. 1; 20 CFR Part 404, Subpt P, Section

9.08(B), App 1; 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Section

5.08(B)(4), App 1; 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Section 8.04,

App 1; 20 CFR 416.920(d); 20 CFR 416.920a(a) and 20 CFR

404. 1520(d), the standards set forth are not administered to the

Disability Insurance Benefits Program in a uniform manner. The

questions presented are whether the appropriate standards were

used and:

I.

WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY IMPROPERLY USED THE MEDICAL-

VOCATIONAL GUIDELINES (20 CFR PART 404,

SUBPART P, APPENDIX 2) TO FIND THAT CLAIMANT,

WHO SUFFERS FROM A URINARY DISORDER, IS NOT

DISABLE?

II.

WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY DID NOT MAKE EVERY REASONABLE

EFFORT TO OBTAIN FROM THE INDIVIDUALS,

TREATING PHYSICIAN (OR OTHER TREATING

HEALTH CARE PROVIDER) ALL MEDICAL EVIDENCE,

INCLUDING DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, NECESSARY IN

ORDER TO PROPERLY MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION,

PRIOR TO EVALUATING MEDICAL EVIDENCE

OBTAINED FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE ON A

CONSULTATIVE BASIS, COMPELS THE CONCLUSION

THAT THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION IS NOT

SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE ON THE

RECORD AS A WHOLE AND IS GROUNDS FOR

REVERSAL?

Il.

WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DID NOT DEVELOP THE MEDICAL RECORDS FULLY

IN VARIOUS WAYS, INCLUDING FAILING TO OBTAIN

MEDICAL RECORDS FROM ALL THE MEDICAL

PROVIDERS, WHOSE NAMES AND ADDRESSES

APPELLANT SUPPLIED TO THE COMMISSIONER AND

PARTICULARLY FAILED TO DEVELOP EVIDENCE

REGARDING CLAIMANT MEDICAL PROBLEMS WITH

STRESS?

IV.

WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY’S DECISION DENYING APPELLANT’S

DISABILITY BENEFITS RESULTS FROM USE OF

IMPROPER LEGAL STANDARDS, AND INCORRECT

APPLICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS TO THE

FACTS OF APPELLANT’S CASE, INCLUDING

REJECTION OF THE CLAIM BECAUSE CLAIMANT

EXPERIENCED NO END ORGAN DAMAGE OR HAS NOT

EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT END ORGAN DAMAGE?

. 2

WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY’S FINDINGS OF FACTS ARE SUPPORTED BY

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AS A

WHOLE AND ARE CONCLUSIVE?

VL.

WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY’S INCOMPLETE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD (LE. SECRETARY OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES’ CERTIFICATION

#93-244 FOR CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-A-648-N, DATED

7/8/93), INCLUDING EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE

FINDINGS AND DECISIONS COMPLAINED OF ARE

BASED, IS GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL?

Vil.

WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS DISABLED, IF

CLAIMANT’S IMPAIRMENT(S) IS SEVERE AND MEET

THE STATUTORY DURATION REQUIREMENTS?

Vii.

WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT TO

CONSIDER, PROPERLY EVALUATE AND

ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THE COMBINED EFFECT OF

ALL THE INDIVIDUAL’S SEVERE IMPAIRMENTS,

INCLUDING URINARY INCONTINENCE, GLAUCOMA,

DIABETES MELLITUS, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE,

GOUT, STRESS, AND DERMATITIS, PRIOR TO

DENYING THE DISABILITY CLAIM?

IX.

WHETHER APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS WERE PREJUDICED BY COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGING CLAIMANT’S

APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

TO CLAIM FOR DISABILITY MEDICARE COVERAGE?

X.

WHETHER APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO

ENGAGE IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY

BY REASON OF MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE

PHYSICAL AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT, SINCE THE

CORRECT ONSET DATES OF THE SEVERE

IMPAIRMENTS?

XI.

WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SHALL DISREGARD ANY EVIDENCE IF THERE IS

REASON TO BELIEVE THAT FRAUD OR SIMILAR

iV

FAULT WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SUCH

EVIDENCE AND MAKE IMMEDIATE

REDETERMINATION OF ENTITLEMENT FOR

APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY

INSURANCE BENEFITS?

XII.

WHETHER APPELLANT IS DISABLED IF

APPELLANT’S IMPAIRMENT(S) MEET THE DURATION

REQUIREMENT AND IS LISTED IN APPENDIX 1 OF 20

CFR, PART 404, SUBPT. P OR IS EQUAL TO LISTED

IMPAIRMENT(S)?

XI

WHETHER CLAIMANT SHOULD BE FOUND

QUALIFIED FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS ON GROUNDS

THAT PRESENT DISABILITY IS CLEARLY AND

DIRECTLY TRACEABLE TO CONDITION HAVING ITS

INCEPTION WHEN CLAIMANT WAS COVERED BY

DISABILITY INSURANCE?

XIV

WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

BREACHED HER DUTY BY NOT DETERMINING THE

STATUTORY MEDICAL EQUIVALENT OF A LISTED

IMPAIRMENT FOR CLAIMANT’S 11 IMPAIRMENTS?

XV

WHETHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BREACHED ITS DUTY BY FAILING TO GRANT OR

DENY APPROXIMATELY 17 OF CLAIMANT’S

OBJECTIONS TO ITS DECISION.

XVI

WHETHER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY’S DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S FAILURE TO FAIRLY

STATE THE SEVERITY OF DIABETES MELLITUS?

v

LIST OF PARTIES PURSUANT TO

RULES 14.1(b) AND 29.1

Petitioner, Raymond Jackson filed suit on his own behalf

and on behalf of his wife, Rogers Mae Jackson; his son, Peter

Nickalus Jackson; his daughter, Stephanie Rogers Jackson and

his grandson Dwight Ailen Love. The Commissioner of Social

Security, Shirley Chater, is the respondent.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented for Review .................0000. i

List of Parties Pursuant to RULES 14.1(b) AND 29.1 ...... Vv

BITE GN sos Ss ad. aa’ Gee ee vi

Teme OC AMON ic exes viexqaeetecwids eee vii

IIE OF TO TRAD an 5.3. cvs a's WEES CRS GH FR l

IU 6. 50 on veces CORRE SA KE OD 12

Citations to Opinions Below ....................005. 12

RN pra eieeay werent weet ts 12

Statutory Provisions Involved ....................0.. 12

Reasons for Granting the Petition .................... 12

CAD Sis 05 ¥iknie'a 33k So wack koe baad ae 17

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

GRIGGS V. SCHWEIKER, D.D. W.VA. 1982, 545 F. Supp. 475

ane Bee eben ee ee coe meverer aes Sot 16

BRANCH V. FINCH, D.C. KAN, 1970, 313 F. SUPP. 337 ..... 16

BROWN V. CELEBREZZE, D.C. S.C. 1962, 210 F. SUPP. 692 .. 16

CASSEL V. HARRIS, D.C. COLO. 1980, 493 F. Supp. 1055 ... i0

DAVIDSON V. GARDNER, C.A. KY. 1966, 370 F.2D 803 .... 16

DRESSEL V. CALIFANO, C.A. Mo. 1977, 558 F.2D 504 ....- 14

GRAHAM V. CELEBREZZE, D.C. W.VA. 1964, 230 F. SUPP. 936

Tey a. AES Gea e ue ca ates ss Camas Urine” 16

Hicks Vv. CALIFANO, CA MD 1979, 600 F.2D 1048 .....- 6, 14

HOLLIDAY V. SCHWEIKER, D.C. ILL. 1983, 563 F. SUPP. 1272

the ig eats Repeats Clam bees Burs 658 ols ©" 16

JASON V. HECKLER, C.A. 5 (LA.) 1985, 767 F. so): 15

LITTLE V. CALIFANO, D.C. N.C. 1978, 462 F. SUPP. $75 ....14

MAC V. SULLIVAN (1993, ED PA) 1993 U.S. DIST. (Exis 206.)

MARTIN V. SECRETARY OF DEPT OF HEALTH, ED AND WELFARE,

CASC 1974, 492F2D90S ...-.-- see essen reset 6,14

PETERSON V, BOWEN (1988, ND Ga) 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15771, CIVIL ACTIONNO. 1:84 2... - 2-2-2022 9,13

RODGERS V, SULLIVAN (1992, ND ILL) 1992 US DisT. LEXIS

eel NE rays gs ceen yeaeeenrees Steet 10

SPADA V. BOWEN, E.D. PA. 1988, 687 F. Supp. 1988 .....- 15

STEFERO V. GARDNER, D.C. PA. 1968, 285 F. Supp. 898... . 16

Vili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

WALKER V. BOWEN, C.A. 4(VA.) 1989, 889 F.2D47 ...... 15

WHITE V. FINCH, D.C. MAss. 1970, 311 F. SUPP. 307 ...... 16

FEDERAL STATUTES

RE IE 8 08S nwo aeawwies oe ean eberiaes 12

Se ee 6 ee aK A 8,9

Se ener ee Re earner, 3

2 Te ee ok EE. OA TIGA 9, 13

42 USCS 405(g), sentence #5 .................... i, 4, 5

GOAT See) oe ZR ANT SR i, 8,9

a A eee oe Bee ee eee rin ae Se 16

G2 te 285i OM 2 CORRS a 16

Gees Gen i 4K CE ASA OA i, 8

Se SEE: va 5 ou co be Ke OURS eke bey os Op eeu i

AR Ue res OR AS SEIS EST. i

CE SINC SE) ek a EI MR. i

ey ES hk oo 8d Seva cG es ewe ts bea ee eas 16

Ga Re GE... 2 BF i LRG AAR AR ad. i

Ce rere Se a ee eG FPA AA KSI 16

SB SIMA ERS a i, 8

Oe ee I 5 i enced kane eens pes wenn i

OS IU en) 8s ERIE BS FORE, V AEN i, 8

42 USCS 423(d)(5)(B) Sentence #2 ........... i, 3, 4, 6, 8

APPENDICES

App No. Appendix Description

la United States Court of Appeals for Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed 6/4/96

ee Aa eee ee

5 eh Al NOS sii LDR aOR Na OU A od 8

pitwisensi SEH xe Pcsbetn ee

App No.

13a

14a

1Sa

16a

25a

27a

28a

30a

3la

ix

APPENDICES

Appendix Description

United States Court of Appeals for Eleventh

Circuit’s Order, filed7/3 1/95

United States District Court’s Order, filed 7/5/94

Action of Appeals Council on Request for

Review, filed March 26, 1993

Decision for Disability Medicare Coverage

(Government Employee), filed 9/23/92

Civil Action No. 93-A-648-N, filed 5/21/93

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Answer, filed 9/8/93

None

Disability Report, filed 7/16/90

Report of Medical Examination, dated 3/31/71

Medical Report and Diagnosis of Glaucoma,

dated 6/8/71

Department of Veterans Affairs 30% and 50%

Rating Decisions, dated 6/28/90

42 USCS 416(i)(1) Disability; Period of

Disability

Department of Veterans Affairs 20% Rating

Decision, dated 5/7/85

App No.

32a

33a

33a

33a

33a

34a

34a

34a

35a

37a

38a

38a

x

APPENDICES

a

42 USCS 423(d) “Disability” defined, paragraphs

1(A), 1(B), 2(A), 2(B) and 5(B)

20 CFR 416.920(d) Evaluation of disability of

adults-when your impairment(s) meets or equals

a listed impairment in Appendix 1

20 CFR 416.920a(a) Evaluation of mental

impairments (a)

20 CFR 404.1520(d) Evaluation of Disability in

General-when your impairment(s) meets or

equals a listed impairment in appendix |

20 CFR 404.1520a Evaluation of mental

impairments (a). General

20 CFR 404.1523 Multiple impairments

20 CFR 404.1525 Listing of Impairments in

Appendix

20 CFR404.1526 Medical Equivalence

42 USCS 405 Evidence, Procedure and

Certification for Payments (g) Judicial Review

42 USCS 405(U) Redetermination Entitlement

20 CFR Part 404, Subpt, P, App 1 - Listing of

Impairments Part A (Excerpts)

20 CFR 404, Subpt P, Section 2.00 (A\(7)

Statutory Blindness

App No.

38a

38a

38a

xi

APPENDICES

sc aaadin Reneiast

20 CFR 404, Subpt P, Section 2.03(B)

Contraction of Peripheral Visual fields in the

Better eye

20 CFR 404, Subpt P, Section 9.08(B) Diabetes

Mellitus (acidosis)

20 CFR 404, Subpt P, Section 5.08(B)(4)

Weight Loss due to uncontrolled Diabetes

Mellitus with hyperg!ycemia.

20 CFR 404, Subpt P, Section 8.04 Deep

Mycotic Infections

Application for Disability Insurance Benefits,

filed 7/16/90

Disability Determination Rationale, dated 1/4/91

Facts About Your Social Security, dated

February 2, 1989

Tuskegee VA Medical Center Clinical

Laboratory Report, dated 8/14/92

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Claimant has had urinary incontinence, a nonexertional

impairment, since August 14, 1992 (see Appendix 6a,

paragraph 10, sentence 15). Additionally, claimant has several

severe exertional impairments, i.e. glaucoma, gout, high blood

pressure, dermatitis and diabetes mellitus (see Appendix 6a,

paragraph 12, sentence 1). On September 23, 1992, the

Administrative law Judge used the residual functional capacity

of “medium work” as set forth in 20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P,

section 203-00 (maximum sustained work capability limited to

medium work as a result of severe medically determinable

impairment(s)) to support finding #5, which states that

“claimant has not been precluded from performing “medium

work” for any prolonged period which lasted or could be

expected to last for at least 12 continuous months” and to

declare claimant not disable (see Appendix 6a, paragraph 18,

sentence #2). Urinary incontinence is a nonexertional

impairment not taken into account by medical-vocational

guidelines (20 CFR part 404, subpart P, appendix 2), as are

exertional impairments. Therefore the rules of 20 CFR, part

404, subpart P, table no. 3-Residual Functional capacity:

maximum sustained work capability limited to medium work as

a result of severe medically determinable impairment(s),

Appendix 2, do not apply to claimant’s case. Consequently, the

administrative law judge erred by using the “medium work

standard” to declare claimant not disable.

On September 23, 1992, the Administrative Law Judge

made findings of fact that claimant’s vocational factors are: age

58, education: high school education, college degree and two

post-graduate degrees; and work experience (past relevant

work): research analyst, operations analyst, logistics specialist

and supply systems analyst (see Appendix 6a, paragraph 3). The

record clearly shows that claimant’s work experience does not

include research analyst, operations analyst, logistics specialist.

Therefore, 75 percent of work experience vocational factor is

l

2

erroneous. Where any one of the finding of fact does not

coincide with the corresponding criterion of a rule, the rule does

not apply in that particular case and, accordingly, does not

direct a conclusion of disabled or not disabled. (See 20 CFR

Part 404, Subpt, P, Sec. 200.00 (a) sentcace 5). The erroneous

work experience vocational factor does not coincide with the

ing criterion for any previous work experience of

Rules 203.10 to 203.17, Table 3, 20 CFR 404, Supbt. P,

Appendix 2, and these rules do not apply. The administrative

law judge failed to identify claimant’s specific vocational profile

and assess the impact of claimant’s stress problems. Clearly,

claimant’s erroneous specific vocational profile is not listed in

Appendix 2. If an individual specific profile is not listed within

this appendix, a conclusion of disabled or not disabled is not

directed. (20 CFR, 404, Supbt. P, Sec 200.00(d), sentence 2.

Clearly, the Administrative Law Judge’s decision of not disable

is a misapplication of the legal standard and the law.

Lastly, case law states that “Urinary incontinence is

nonexertional not taken into account by Medical-Vocational

Guidelines (20 CFR part 404, Subpart P, App 2), and its

presence, if proven, precludes use of guidelines to find that

claimant is not disable. Mac v. Sullivan (1993, Ed Pa) 1995

US. Dist. (Exis 206.) The presence of urinary incontinence

associated with diabetes mellitus (App 6a, para 12, sentence 1),

is proven at appendix 6, paragraph 10, sentence 15, paragraph

13, sentence 9 and paragraph 11, sentences #5 and #7. Clearly,

the Commissioner of Social Security decision of not disable

should be reviewed and reversed.

Additionally, on July 16, 1990, claimant provided the

Secretary of health and Human Services (now Commissioner of

Social Security) the names, addresses, phone numbers of six (6)

Veterans Medical Centers and doctors who had treated

claimant’s Glaucoma from 1977 to 1989 (see entries #3, 6, 7, 8,

14 and 15, pages 88 and 89 of Secretary of Heaith and Human

: Services’ Certification #93-244 for Civil Action number 93-A-

eS ef ee ee

A ee ee ee ee

oni a neil

3

0648-N, dated July 8, 1993), but the Commissioner failed to

make every reasonable effort to obtain all medical evidence

from claimant file at the Veterans Administration Centers,

including Veterans Administration Approval of 20 percent

combined disabilities (i.e. 20 percent for loss of field of vision

and 0 percent for dermatophysis) filed May 7, 1985 and

effective 12/1/84 (see App 3/a) ; 30 percent for Glaucoma with

bilateral visual field impairment, effective 1 1-4-88 and 50

percent Glaucoma with bilateral visual field impairment,

effective 10/6/89 (see App 28a, page 2). Clearly, the

Commissioner of Social Security failed to comply with the legal

standards set forth in 42 USCS 423(d)(S)(B) Sentence #2,

which compels the conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision

is not supported by substantial evidence, not conclusive and is

grounds for reversal. Certiorari is warranted.

Claimant’s correct onset date for Glaucoma is March 31,

1971, as stated on claimant's Disability Report, filed 7/16/90,

line 1, (App 16a) page 87 of Secretary of Health and Human

Services’ Certification #93-244 for Civil Action number 93-A-

0648-N, dated July 8, 1993 and as documented on claimant’s

United States Navy Report of Medical Examination, dated

3/31/71 (see App 25a, line 24) and on U.S. Navy medical

Report on June 8, 1971 (see App 27a). On July 16, 1990,

claimant provided the Commissioner of Social Security the

name, address, phone number of the United States Navy doctor

(i.e. Dr. David Bisno, LCDR, MC USNR, Head, Optometry

Branch, Naval Aerospace Medical Institute, Naval Aerospace

Medical Center, U.S. Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida

32512) (see entry 19, page 28, App 16a or page 89 of Secretary

of health and Human Services’ Certification #93-244 for Civil

Action Number 93-A-0648-N, dated July 8, 1993). Certification

#93-244 Clearly shows that the Secretary of Health and Human

Services (now Commissioner of Social Security) failed to make

every reasonable effort to obtain from Dr. Bisno, claimant’s

initial treating physician for Glaucoma, all medical evidence,

CDE OE OE >

Pe

4

including diagnostic tests, necessary in order to properly make

such determination, prior to evaluating medical evidence

obtained from any other source on a consultative basis, which is

contrary to legal standards set forth in 42 USCS 423(d)(5\(B),

sentence #2. Therefore Certiorari is warranted.

The September 23, 1992 Administrative law Judge’s

decision (App 6a) makes no reference to medical records of all

doctors who treated claimant’s Glaucoma, including entry #3,

Dr. Thomas Turner, VA Medical Center in 1989; Entry #6, Dr

Harry R. Ori, VA Medical Center, in 1988; Entry #7-Dr.

Martinez, VA Medical Center, in 1988, Entry #8-Dr. Wilfrido

Herrero, VA Medical Center, in 1986 and 1987, Entry #11, Dr.

Edward Kinkopf, 1985; Entry #12, Dr Charles F. Schrimpf, in

1982, 1983 and 1984; Entry # 13 Dr. Ralph C. Dilorio,

Southern Eye Clinic, in 1981; Entry #16 Dr. Rosenthal,

Stanford Medical Center, in 196; Entry #17, Dr. Robert L.

Weisman, 1971-1975; and Entry #19, Dr. David Bisno, LCDR,

MS USNR, Head-Optometry Branch, 3-30-71 to 6/23/71 and

Entry #18, Fr. Fisher, in 1972 (see claimant’s Disability Report,

filed 7/16/90, App 16a pages 2A and 2B, or Secretary of Health

and Human Services’ Certification #93-244 for Civil Action 93-

0648, filed July 9, 1993, pages 88 and 89). Therefore, the

commissioner failed to develop the cited medical records as well

as evidence related to claimant medica! problems with stress.

Clearly the commissioner’s decision are contrary to the legal

standards set forth in 42 USCS 423(d)(5)(B), sentences #1 and

#2 and 42 USCS 405(g), sentence #5. Additionally, the

Commissioner used improper legal standards and misapplied

laws to the facts of this case to deny disability benefits, which

compels the conclusion that the Commissioner's decision is not

supported by substantive evidence in the record, not conclusive

and constitutes grounds for reversal. Certiorari is warranted in

this case.

Claimant’s Disability Report, filed 7/16/90, listed worked

performed in past 15 years as Operations Research Analyst,

5

Logistics Management Specialist, Supply Systems Analyst,

Supply Specialist, Supply Intern and Postal Clerk (see page 4A,

Claimant Disability Report, App 16a or Page 91, Secretary of

Health and Human Services Certification #93-244 to Civil

Action 93-A-648-N, filed July 8, 1993). The Administrative

Law Judge states that the record reveals that claimant’s past

relevant work has been as a research analyst, operations analyst,

logistics specialist and supply systems analyst (see paragraph 3,

sentence 7 of Administrative Law Judge’s Decision, App 6a or

page 49 of Secretary of Health and Human Services’

Certification #93-244, of Civil Action no. 93-A-648-N, filed

July 8, 1993. The record shows that claimant has never worked

as a research analyst, operations analyst, or logistics specialist.

Therefore, the Commissioner of Social Security’s findings of

fact is not only not conclusive, but are not supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Therefore,

improper legal standards of 42 USCS 405(g), sentence 5, were

used to deny disability benefits. Clearly, Certiorari and reversal

is warranted.

Additionally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services

Certification #93-244 of Civil Action No. 93-A-648-N, filed

July 8, 1993, is incomplete because it does not include the

Veterans Medical Center report dated September 5, 1990 and

August 22, 1990 (see App 40a, page 65 of Secretary of Health

and Human Services’ Certification #93-244 of Civil Action No

93-A-648-N, filed July 8, 1993) upon which claimant’s

disability benefits were denied. Therefore, use of the improper

legal standards of 42 USC 405(g), sentences #3 and #5, were

used to deny claimant’s disability benefits has not only

prejudiced the rights of the claimant 42 USCS 405(b)(1) denied

claimant’s First Amendment Right to petition for redress and

denied claimant’s Fifth Amendment due process right, but the

decision is invalid, compels the conclusion that the findings of

fact and the decision to deny disability benefits are not

supported by substantial evidence on the records as a whole,

6

compels the inescapable conclusion that claimant is disabled and

strongly suggests that this case merits not only review by

Certiorari, but should be reversed.

The Administrative law Judge’s decision states that claimant

suffers from urinary incontinence since August 14, 1992, (see

paragraph 10, sentence 15, App 6a) and severe impairments of

glaucoma, gout, high blood pressure; dermatitis and diabetes,

but the record reveals no end item damage, resulting from high

blood pressure (see paragraph 12, sentence #1 and 6, App 6a)

or hypertension (see App 6a, sentence 7). Each cited

impairment is severe and exceeds the statutory duration

requirements of 12 months. Therefore claimant is disabled by

virtue of 20 CFR 404.1520(a) sentence #5. It has been upheld

that claimant who suffered no end organ damage as result of

either hypertension or diabetes or both did not require rejection

of disability claim (see Martin v. Secretary of Dept of Health,

Ed and Welfare, CASC 1974, 492 F2d 905). Additionally it has

been upheld that nothing in this section permits rejection ofa

disability claim simply because this claimant has not experienced

significant end organ damage (see Hicks v. Califano, CA Md

1979, 600 F.2d 1048).

The record clearly shows that the Commissioner of Social

Security did not meet statutory requirements and legal

standards of 42 USCS 423(d)(2)(B); 20 CFR 416.920(a),

sentence #5 and 20 CFR 416.1520(a), sentence #4, to consider,

properly evaluate and adequately explain the combined effect of

all the individual’s severe impairments, including urinary

incontinence, diabetes mellitus, glaucoma, high blood pressure,

gout and dermatitis, prior to denying the disability claim on

September 23, 1992 (see Decision of Administrative Law

Judge, App 6a). Consequently, this case not only merits

certiorari, but this constitutes grounds for reversal.

The record shows that claimant filed an application for

disability insurance benefits on 7/16/90 (see App 39a), not a

claim for disability Medicare coverage. The Administrative Law

7

Judge’s Decision (see page 1, App 6a) clearly states that “the

decision is for a claim for disability Medicare coverage

(Governmental employee). Clearly, claimant’s First Amendment

Right to petition the Government for grievances and fifth

amendment right - due process have been denied. Therefore the

Administrative Law Judge not only erred and applied an

improper legal standard, but the act is unconstitutional, should

be reviewed by Certiorari, and promptly reversed.

The record shows claimant’s onset dates for the severe

impairments of urinary incontinence (August 14, 1992) (see

App 6a, paragraph 10, sentence 15); glaucoma, March 31,

1971( see App 25a, line 24) and further diagnosis on May 27,

1971 (see App 27a) (not March 30, 1988); hypertension (1985),

(Dermaphytosis of the feet) (2/27/85), gout (9/89) (see

Disability Report, App 16 a or pages 88 and 89 of Secretary of

Health and Human Services Certification #93-244 for Civil

Action 93-A-0648-N, filed July 8, 1993) and diabetes mellitus

(August 14, 1992) (see App 6a, Sentence 17, paragraph 10; and

sentence 1, paragraph 12). The record shows that claimant has

used EPIFRIN or TIMOPTIC eye drops for glaucoma since

5/27/71. (see Disability Report, App 16a pages 2A and 2B, filed

7/16/90 or Secretary of Health and Human Services’

Certification’s #93-244 for Civil Action NO. 93-A-0648-N,

filed July 8, 1993). The record shows that claimant has not been

evaluated for his health problems with stress or the combined

effect of all claimant’s impairments. Claimants worked with the

severe impairments from 5/27/71 to 3/30/88, when claimant

became unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by

reasons of his severe impairments. It is noted that Department

of Veterans Affairs declared claimant to be 20 percent disable

from glaucoma with loss of field of vision, effective 12/1/84

(see App 31a); 30 percent disable, effective 11/4/88 and 50

percent, effective 10/6/89 (see App 28). Therefore it is clear

that claimant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful

activity and that improper legal standards, misapplication of

laws and regulations to the facts of applicant’s case, including

42 USCS 423(d)(1)(A), (2)(A) and (5)(B) and 42 USCS

416(i)(1) has resulted in claimant being denied his lawful

disability benefits since July 16, 1990.

The record shows that Commissioner of Social Security

used the medical report of Mark S. Veres, DPM, a foot

specialist, dated September 6, 1989, who never treated

claimant’s eyes for glaucoma, to deny claimant’s application for

disability insurance benefits on 1/7/91 (see App 40a). Clearly

the use of a foot specialist medical report to deny a glaucoma

disability is fraud or similar fault (42 USCS 405(U)(1)(B) and

(2)), use of improper legal standards to deny disability claim,

denial of claimant’s first amendment right to redress

government for grievances, fifth amendment right to due

process of law, compels immediate redetermination of

entitlement for disability benefits, 42 USCS 405(U)(1)(B) and

(2)), compels conclusion that the findings of fact and the

decision to deny the disability claim is not supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole, compels the

unescapable conclusion that claimant is disable, suggests

strongly a review by Certiorari and a prompt reversal.

The record shows that Appellant’s Disability Report, App

16a, filed 7/16/90, contains 11 impairments, i.e. glaucoma, with

fields of vision loss, 22 degrees left eye and 24 degrees right eye

(2.03), gout (arthritis); skin disease (rash); skin disease

(head/hair); skin disease (hair); skin disease; stress;

hypertension; bilateral scotomas; eye injury, and Dermaphytosis

of the feet (8.04) (see pages 2A and 2B, App 16 a or pages 88

and 89, of the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

Certification for civil action no. 93-244, filed July 8, 1993), and

that urinary incontinence and diabetes mellitus were included in

the Administrative Law Judge’s decision filed September 23,

1992 (see App 6a, paragraph 12, sentence 1 and paragraph 10,

sentence 15) The record shows that the combined effect of the

11 impairments were not considered, properly evaluated or

9

adequately explained. It is noted that the Administrative Law

Judge listed 5 impairments, i.e., glaucoma, gout, high blood

pressure, dermatitis and diabetes mellitus (see App 6a,

paragraph 12, sentence 1). Clearly the improper substitution of

the Administration Law Judge’s 5 impairments for Appellant’s

11 impairment constitutes not only fraud or a similar fault (42

USCS 405(U)(1)(B) and (2)), use of improper legal standard to

deny disability claim, denial of appellant’s first amendment right

to see redress for grievances with government and fifth

amendment right to due process of law, compels immediate

redetermination of entitlement for disability insurance benefits

42 (USCS 405(U)(1)(B) and (2)), compels conclusion that the

findings of fact and the decision to deny the disability claim is

not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,

not conclusive, compels the inescapable conclusion that

appellant is disable, and suggests strongly a review by

Certiorari.

The record shows that the Secretary (now Commissioner of

Social Security) failed to use the proper legal standard “to

consider, properly evaluate and adequately explain the

combined effects” of 11 claimant’s impairments (i.e. glaucoma,

with vision field loss-22 degrees, left eye and 24 degrees, right

eye (2.03); gout (arthritis); skin (rash); skin disease (head/hair);

stress; hypertension; bilateral scotomas; eye injury;

dermaphytosis of the feet (8.04); urinary incontinence and

diabetes mellitus (9.04) prior to denial of disability benefits.

Eleventh Circuit’s case law has held that “Secretary’s failure to

consider claimant’s impairments in combination was

misapplication of Eleventh circuit, and established lack of

substantial justification for the Secretary’s position, where

although rule that impairments be considered in combination

was not explicitly mandated by statute until 42 USCS

405(d)(2)(C) was added, it had long been requirement in the

Eleventh Circuit. Peterson v. Bowen (1988, ND Ga) 1988 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 15771, Civil Action No. 1:84-CV-1460-JOF”.

ERP el OE Aa

Facto: 4

10

Clearly, the 11th Circuit has ruled that the Secretary’s action

constitutes misapplication of the law and established lack of

substantial justification for the Secretary’s position. The

Secretary use of an improper legal standard and misapplication

of the law compels not only review by Certiorari, but compels

the inescapable conclusion that claimant is disable, and compels

immediate reversal of the Secretary’s decision.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) breached his duty to

develop complete medical history and make every reasonable

effort to help obtain medical reports of 11 glaucoma medical

providers, which are listed in the Disability Reports, dated

7/16/90, App 16a as entries #3, 6,7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19 and

16, after claimant granted permission. Case law states that

“when ALJ breaches duty to develop complete history and

make every reasonable effort to help obtain medical reports

when granted permission by claimant, Secretary’s position is

not substantially justified”. Rodgers v. Sullivan (1992, ND Il)

1992 US Dist. LEXIS 16028. Clearly, the Secretary’s position

is not conclusive. The Secretary’s use of an improper legal

standard and misapplication of the law compels not only review

by Certiorari, but compels the inescapable conclusion that

claimant is disable and compels immediate reversal of the

Secretary’s decision.

Claimant’s present disability is clearly and directly traceable

to glaucoma, a condition which had its inception on 3/31/71

(see App 25a) line 24; Medical Report on 5/27/71, see App

27a) when claimant was covered by disability insurance from

June 1960 to March 1973 (see App 41a, Claimant’s Earning

Record, pages 1 and 2 or pages 41 and 42 of Secretary of

Health and Human Services’ Certification #93-244 for Civil

Action No. 93-A-0648-N, dated July 8, 1993). Case law states

that “If claimant could demonstrate present disability that was

clearly and directly traceable to condition having its inception

when she was covered by disability insurance, she could be

found qualified for disability benefits. Cassel v. Harris, D.C.

11

Colo. 1980, 493 F. Supp. 1055. Claimant meets the conditions

set forth in Cassel v. Harris. Therefore, claimant should be

found qualified for disability benefits.

The record of this case clearly shows that the Commissioner

of Social Security breached her duty by failing to determine the

statutory medical equivalent of a li..ed impairment for

claimant’s 11 impairments.

United Stats District Court failed to grant or deny

approximately 17 of claimant’s objections raised in opposition

to its decision (App 3a). Clearly, claimant was denied his Fifth

Amendment due process right, denial of a Constitutional right is

not only grounds for Certiorari, but compels the inescapable

decision that claimant is disable and constitutes grounds for

immediate reversal.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) breached his duty by

misstating the true severity of claimant’s diabetes mellitus

impairment for the sentence “Laboratory testing revealed a

blood glucose of 334 mg/dl” (see App 6a, sentence 16), on

9/23/92. The ALJ failed to state that the glucose result was

abnormally high (i.e., 224 mg/dl above its normal range); failed

to state that urea nitrogen result of 7.0 mg/dl was abnormally

low (i.e., 1 mg/dl below the minimum lab range) and failed to

state that chloride result (i.e. 100 mm01/) was abnormally low

(1 mm01/ below the minimum ref range) (see App 43a).

Clearly, the ALJ breached his duty to fairly state the severity of

diabetes mellitus and explain the implications of the low

readings for chloride and urea nitrogen. This action of the ALJ

compels the conclusion that the findings of fact and decision of

this case not supported by substantial evidence on the record as

a whole, but that the decision is not conclusive, compels the

inescapable conclusion that claimant is disable and that the

Secretary’s decision be promptly reversed.

ee i Lr ee Raa,

12

INTRODUCTORY PRAYER

Appellant Raymond Jackson prays this Court to grant his

petition for certiorari to review an adverse decision by the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW

The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit are at Appendices 1a and 2a.

The decision of the United States District Court, Middle

District of Alabama is at Appendix 3a.

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is at

Appendix 6a. The decision of the Council is at Appendices 4a.

JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1254 because

appellant seeks review of an adverse decision rendered by the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The statutes underlying this case are at appendices 30a, 32a,

35a, and 37a. The Code of Federal regulations underlying this

case are at appendices 33a, 34a, and 38a.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS ARE

IN DIRECT CONFLICT AS TO APPLICABLE

STANDARDS IN THE RECOGNITION AND ANALYSIS

13

OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF

CLAIMANT’S FOR INSURANCE DISABILITY BENEFITS.

The applicable standards for use in the insurance disability

benefits program is set forth in the statutes and regulations

previously cited.

The Eleventh Circuit has arbitrarily and capriciously

abandoned many of legal standards, as set forth in claimant’s

Statement of the Case. For example, the record shows that the

Secretary failed to consider, properly evaluate and adequately

explain “claimant's impairment in combination”. Case law states

that “Secretary’s failure to consider claimant’s impairments in

combination was misapplication of Eleventh Circuit law, and

established lack of substantial justification for Secretary's

position, where although rule that impairments be considered in

combination was not explicitly mandated by statute until 42

USCS 405(d)(2\(C) was added, it had long been requirement in

Eleventh Circuit”. Peterson v. Bowen (1988, ND Ga) 1988 US

Dist, LEXIS 15771, Civil Action No. 1:84-CV-1460-JOF.

Clearly, the 11th Circuit has ruled that the Secretary’s actions

constitutes misapplication of the law and established lack of

substantial justification for the Secretary’s position. Therefore,

the Eleventh Circuit’s position not only compels review by

Certiorari, but compels the inescapable conclusion that claimant

is disable and that the use of the improper legal standard

compels immediate reversal of the Secretary’s decision.

A. A DIRECT CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN THE

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S RECOGNITION OF A FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN THIS CASE AND

DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUITS REFUSING TO

RECOGNIZE OR LIMITING SUCH A RIGHT.

The Conflicts

1. In this case the Eleventh Circuit uses the standard “that

claimant has not experienced significant or no end organ

damage” to reject claimant’s disability claim (see App 6a_,

paragraph 12, sentence # 6 and paragraph 13 and sentences #7

i ate

os

14

and 13). On the contrary, it was held in other circuits that “mere

fact that claimant for total disability had suffered no end organ

damage as a result of either hypertension or diabetes or both did

not require rejection of disability claim” (Martin v. Secretary of

Dept. of Health, Ed, and Welfare (C.A.S.C. 1974, 492 F.2d

905.)”. Additionally, it was held that “nothing in this section

permits rejection of a disability claim simply because the

Hicks v. Califano, C.A. Md. 1979, 600 F. 2d 1048.

2. In this case the Eleventh Circuit failed to use the standard

“to consider, properly evaluate and adequately explain the

combined effects” of claimant’s 11 impairments (see App 16a,

pages 28 and 28a, App 6a paragraph 12, sentence #1 and App

10, sentence # 15) in the records before denial of payment of

disability benefits or denial of benefits. On the contrary it was

held in other circuits - i.e. Third Circuit “where there are several

illnesses suffered simultaneously by a social security disability

claimant,, combined effects of the impairment must be

considered before the Secretary can deny the payment of

benefits. Kodriguez v. Schweiker, D.C. 1981, 523 F. Supp.

1240; Eighth Circuit “Illnesses of claimant for disability

insurance benefits must be considered in combination and must

not be fragmentize in evaluating their effects; fact that each

illness standing alone may not be disabling is not conclusive on

question of whether individual is disable. Dressel v. Califano,

C.A. Mo. 1977, 558 F.2d 504 and Fourth Circuit

“Administrative Law Judge erred in failing to consider possible

cumulative effect of maladies, including menopausal syndrome,

acute and chronic arthritis, and acute and chronic anxiety, which

were medically related in terms of their effect on claimant. Little

v. Califano, D.C. N.C. 1978, 462 F. Supp. 575 and lastly,

“Failure to establish disability under the listing by reference to a

single, separate impairment does not prevent disability award,

the combined effects of claimant’s impairments must be

considered and the administrative law judge must adequately his

15

or her evaluation of the combined effects of the impairments.

Walker v. Bowen, C.A. 4 (Va.) 1989, 889 F.2d 47.

B. EVEN IF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN

RECOGNIZED, THE CIRCUITS ARE ON DEEP

CONFLICT ABOUT THE WAY TO TREAT THE RIGHT IN

THE FACE OF COMPETING GOVERNMENTAL

INTERESTS.

The Conflicts

1) In this case, the Eleventh Circuit substituted its 5 severe

impairments (i.e. glaucoma, gout, high blood pressure,

dermatitis and diabetes mellitus) for claimant’s ]] impairments

(i.e., glaucoma, with vision field loss-22 degrees, left eye and 24

degrees, right eye) (2.03); gout (arthritis); skin disease (rash);

skin disease (head/hair); stress; hypertension; bilateral scotomas;

eye injury; dermaphytosis of the feet (8.04); urinary

incontinence and diabetes mellitus (9.04) and then decided that

claimant was not disable, without evaluating stress,

hypertension, dermaphytosis of the feet or urinary incontinence

or the combined effects of the 11 impairments. The record

clearly shows that claimant has met the “Listed impairment

standard” or its medical equivalence, which the record shows

that Commissioner of Social Security failed to determine. On

the contrary, the other circuits held: Third Circuit “Upon

introduction of medical evidence that Social Security disability

claimant suffers from one or more serious “listed” impairments,

he is considered disabled per se. “Spada v. Bowen, E.d. Pa.

1988, 687 F. Supp. 1988", Fifth Circuit - “If disability

claimant’s impairment is determined to be nonsevere, claimant

is considered not disabled; but if claimant’s impairment is

severe, meets the durational requirements of statue and is listed

in Appendix I or is determined to be medical equivalent of a

listed impairment, a finding of disabled is mandatory without

additional inquiry. Jason v. Heckler, C.a. 5 (la.) 1985, 767 F. 2d

82; Fourth Circuit - “Under this section, if claimant has

impairment or impairments which meet or equal those listed in

16

regulations, findings of disability shall be made without

consideration of vocational factors. Griggs v. Schweiker, D.d.

W.Va. 1982, 545 F. Supp. 475 and other circuit - “If disability

benefits claimant’s impairment meets durational requirement of

this section and is listed in Section 404.1503 of 20 C.F.R. of

appendix to this title or is medical equivalent of listed

impairment, claimant is entitled to per se finding of disability”.

Holliday v. Schweiker, D.C. Ill. 1983, 563 F. Supp. 1272.

1. By virtue of 42 USCS 423(d) and 42 USCS 416(i),

United States Government manages and operates the Insurance

Disability Benefits program. Clearly, a common objective of

many governmental programs, is to minimize total cost of the

program. The common objective frequently clashes with

claimant’s rights to disability benefits.

2. Disability benefits claimants have both constitutional and

statutory rights to disability benefits. It is well-established by

other circuits that “the law favors liberal construction of this

subchapter (42 USCS 423) in favor of disability benefits

claimant”. Bagwell v. Celebrezze, D.C.S.C. 1964, 232 F. Supp.

989. See also, Davidson v. Gardner, C.A. Ky. 1966, 370 F. 2d

803; Sharbino v. Richardson, D.C. La. 1971, 334 F. Supp. 107;

Branch v. Finch, D.C. Kan, 1970, 313 F. Supp. 337; White v.

Finch, D.C. Mass. 1970, 311 F. Supp. 307; Stefero v. Gardner,

D.C. Pa. 1968, 285 F. Supp. 898; Blakenship v. Celebrezze,

D.C. W. Va 1964, 232 F. Supp. 229; Graham v. Celebrezze,

D.C. W.Va. 1964, 230 F. Supp. 936; Brown v. Celebrezze,

D.C. S.C. 1962, 210 F. supp. 692.

3. Claimant contends that as long as the Insurance

Disability Benefits Program is mandated by virtue of 42 USCS

423 and 42 USCS 416, the competing governmental interests

should be given less weight than the claimant’s constitutional

rights for insurance

disability benefits.

17

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Roya hee Liou

Counsel of Record

225 Conrad Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36110

(334) 265-8801

peer ya

App la

IN the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-6765

Raymond Jackson, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

Shirley S. Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Alabama

Before: Edmondson and Cox, Circuit Judges and Johnson,

Senior Circuit Judge

Per Curiam:

The petition(s) for rehearing filed by the appellant is

denied.

Entered for the Court:

/s/ J. L. Edmondson

United States Circuit Judge

Filed U.S. Court of Appeals

Eleventh Circuit

June 04, 1996

Miguel J. Cortez, Clerk

App 2a

In the United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 94-6765

Non-Argument Calendar

DC Docket No. CV-93-A-648-N

Raymond Jackson,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

(July 31, 1995)

Before EDMONDSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and

JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Jackson appeals from the district court’s

judgment affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and

Human Services to deny his application for disability insurance

benefits and Medicare benefits. After reviewing the record, we

conclude that the numerous contentions raised by Jackson on

this appeal are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

App 3a |

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON,

Plaintiff

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-A-648-N

DONNA E. SHALALA, Secretary

of Health and Human Services

Defendant.

ORDER

This cause is now before the court upon the

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on January 26,

1994 and Plaintiff's Objections to that Recommendation filed

on February 8, 1998.' The Magistrate Judge recommends that

the final decision of Defendant denying the Plaintiff Social

Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income

under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act be affirmed.

Upon an independent evaluation of this matter, and after

considering the Recommendation and Objections, this court

finds Plaintiff’ s Objections to be without merit.

Accordingly, the Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge is ADOPTED, and the final decision of the Defendant is

AFFIRMED.

Done this 5th day of July, 1994.

EOD 7/5/94

/s/ W. Harold Albritton

United States District Judge

'The court has also reviewed Defendant’s response to the

Magistrate’s Recommendation filed on February 25, 1994 and

Plaintiff's objections to the response filed on March 14, 1994.

FILED July 5, 1994

Clerk

U.S. District Court

Middle District of Alabama

Deputy Clerk, by JC

Exhibit 1!

App 4a

Department of Heath & Human Services

Social Security Administration

Refer to: S3GCP Office of Hearings and Appeals

423-42-1287 PO Box 3200

Arlington, VA 22203

March 26, 1993

ACTION OF APPEALS COUNCIL ON REQUEST FOR

- REVIEW

Mr. Raymond Jackson

2980 Juniper Street

Fairfield, CA 94533

Dear Mr. Jackson:

The request for review of the Administrative Law Judge’s

decision in your case has been considered.

Social Security Administration regulations provide that the

Appeals Council will grant a request for review where: (1) there

appears to be an abuse of discretion by the Administrative Law

Judge; (2) there is an error of law; (3) the Administrative Law

Judge’s action, findings, or conclusions are not supported by

substantial evidence; or (4) there is a broad policy or procedural

issue which may affect the general public interest. The

regulations also provide that where new and material evidence

is submitted with the request for review, the entire record will

be evaluated and review will be granted where the Appeals

Council finds that the Administrative Law Judge’s actions,

findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence

currently of record. (These provisions are contained in 20 CFR

404.970 for Social Security claims under Title II of the Social

Security Act and in 20 CFR 416.1470 for Supplemental

Security Income claims under Title XVI of the Act.)

The Appeals Council has concluded that there is no basis under

the above regulations for granting your request for review. In

reaching this conclusion, the Appeals Council has considered

the applicable statutes, regulations, and rulings in effect as of

the date of this action. Accordingly, your request is denied and

the Administrative Law Judge’s decision stands as the final

decision of the Secretary in your case.

The Appeals Council also considered the additional evidence,

and the statements you made in the correspondence submitted

in connection with the request for review, but decided they

provided no basis to change the hearing decision.

As was indicated on the application form itself, the claim you

filed on July 16, 1990 was an application for a period of

disability and/or all insurance benefits under both Title IT and

Part A of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act for which you

may be eligible. While you earned the necessary work coverage

for purposes of establishing entitlement to Medicare prior to

age 65 based on a disability (section 226(b)(2)(C) of the Social

Security Act), you do not have enough covered employment to

meet the disability earnings requirements to qualify for cash

benefits based on disability (section 216(i) of the Act).

You have consistently maintained that the medical records from

the Veterans Administration and other government agencies

establish that you are disabled and have been for years as the

result of glaucoma and/or several other impairments. However,

the statements you made regarding your problems, symptoms

and resultant limitations are not sufficient alone to establish

disability (20 CFR 404.1529). In addition, because you were

treated for certain conditions does not necessarily signify they

were disabling. Moreover and contrary to your assertion, it is

your responsibility to furnish evidence to establish that you are

disabled (20 CFR 404.1512).

If you desire a court review of the Administrative Law Judge’s

decision, you may commence a civil action by filing a complaint

in the United States District Court for the judicial district in

which you reside within sixty (60) days from the date of the

receipt of this letter. It will be presumed that this letter is

received within five (5) days after the date shown above unless

a reasonable showing to the contrary is made. The complaint

should name the Secretary of Health and Human Services as the

defendant and should include the Social Security number(s)

shown at the top of this notice. The right to court review is

provided for in section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as

amended (42 USC 405(g)) for claims under Title IT and in

section 1631(c)(3) of the Act (42 USC 1383(c)(3)) for claims

under Title XVI.

If a civil action is commenced, the Secretary must be served by

sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or

certified mail to the General Counsel of the Department of

Health and Human Services at 200 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20201. (See rules 4(c)(2) and (d)(4) and (5) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Part 45, Section 4.1 of

the Code of Federal Regulations.) In addition, you must serve

the United States Attorney for the district in which you file your

complaint and the Attorney General of the United States, as

provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Catherine Ravinski

Administrative Appeals Judge

CC:

Christopher M. Cooper, Esq.HO, San Rafael, CA (ALJ

Booker)

App 6a

DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Social Security Administration

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

DECISION

IN THE CASE OF CLAIM FOR

Disability Medicare Coverage

(Government Employee)

Raymond Jackson

Claimant

423-42-1287

Social Security Number

This case is before me on a re quest for hearing. The issue

before the Administrative law Judge is whether the claimant

meets the statutory definition of disability for purposes of

eligibility for Medicare coverage. It is my decision that the

claimant is not disabled for the reasons indicated below.

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The claimant filed an application on July 16, 1990 for a

determination of disability, in order to establish entitlement to

Medicare coverage based upon his governmental employment

ee ee - .

ee ee ee ee a ee ~*

and contributions into the Medicare trust funds. His application

was denied initially on January 7, 1981 and upon

reconsideration. The claimant filed a request for hearing. While

the claimant did not wish to appear at a hearing, he did wish to

have a hearing held on his behalf with an appearance by his

attorney, Christopher Cooper. Pursuant to his request, a hearing

was held before the undersigned on August 20, 1992, in

Columbus, Ohio. Christopher Cooper, attorney-at-law,

appeared on behalf of the claimant and answered questions from

the administrative law judge and presented his arguments on

behalf of the claimant. The claimant did not appear at the

hearing.

EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

The ciaimant alleges disability since March 30, 1988. He

satisfies the earnings requirements for Medicare coverage of a

government employee based upon disability on that date and

continuing through December 31, 1993. However, since his

alleged onset date of disability, the claimant has not met the

requirements for entitlement to disability insurance benefits. The

claimant was born on January 29, 1934 and currently is 58 years

of age. He completed a high school education, has a college

degree and two post-graduate degrees. According to a disability

report submitted in conjunction with his application on July 16,

1990, the claimant alleged disability commencing March 30,

1988 as a result of glaucoma (Exhibit 13, p. 1). More recently,

the claimant has alleged disability as a result of multiple medical

conditions including glaucoma, gout (arthritis), hypertension,

skin disease, Dermaphytosis of the feet, bilateral scotomas and

the inability to control release of his urine (Exhibit 18, p.2). The

record reveals that the claimant’s past relevant work has been

as a research analyst, operations analyst, logistics specialist and

supply systems analyst. All of the claimant’s past relevant work

has been for the United States Government.

Section 226 of the Social Security Act, as amended, provides

for entitlement to Hospital Insurance Benefits (Medicare) for

individuals with Medicare qualified government employment.

Such government employment is treated as Social Security

qualifying “employment” for the purpose of qualifying for

disability Medicare coverage. To obtain Medicare benefits such

employees must file an application for benefits and must meet

the insured status and other disability eligibility requirements of

though no such cash benefits are payable. Disability must exist

for 29 consecutive months, at least 12 months of which must

occur after the filing of the application. The 29 month period

consists of five “waiting months” followed by 24 additional

months of disability. Medicare coverage can begin in the 30th

month of disability.

In determining disability, a five-step sequential evaluation is

utilized (20 CFR § 404.1520) and 416.920). An individual who

is engaging in substantial gainful activity cannot be found

disabled. if the individual does not have a “severe” impairment

or combination of impairments, a finding of disability cannot be

made. A “severe” impairment or combination of impairments

which meets or equals the level of severity set forth in the

Listing of Impairments will result in a finding of disability. If

none of the above three steps result in a finding of disabled or

not disabled, a determination is required as to whether the

individual can return to and perform his past relevant work.

Once an individual has established that he cannot resume his

past relevant work, the burden is then on the Secretary to show

that there are other jobs existing in significant numbers in the

national economy which he can perform consistent with his

functional limitations and age, education and work experience.

The evidence reveals that the claimant has not engaged in

substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of

disability of March 30, 1988.

The medical evidence reveals that the claimant was seen as an

outpatient at the Veteran’s Administration facility on April 2,

1986 at which time it was noted that the claimant had adequate

intraocular pressure control. He was seen October 24, 1986 for

a skin condition involving the scalp with improvement (Exhibit

14).

On September 6, 1989, the claimant was initially seen by mark

Veres, DPM, with complaints of pain in the big toe joint. This

was diagnosed as probable acute gouty arthritis. Indocin was

prescribed and on September 12, 1989 the claimant reported

marked symptomatic improvement. Examination revealed no

further abnormality (Exhibit 15).

The claimant was seen on march 21, 1990 by Harold Hatcher,

MD, an ophthalmologist, for follow-up with his glaucoma. The

best corrected visual acuity was 20/25 in the right eye and

20/40 in the left eye. Visual fields remained stable. The claimant

was expected to continue taking Timoptic eyedrops (Exhibit

16).

The remainder of the evidence consists of Veteran’s

Administration outpatient treatment notes dating from

September 27, 1988 through August 14, 1992. When seen

September 27, 1988 it was noted that the claimant had

glaucoma bilaterally which was stable. No visual changes were

noted at that time. Timoptic eyedrops were continued. The

claimant was seen on July 13, 1989 in the dermatology clinic for

his scalp and skin rash. He was diagnosed as having Folliculitis

and seborrheic dermatitis. Medications including Tetracycline

were prescribed. On September 5, 1989, the claimant

complained of pain in the right great toe with the provisional

diagnosis of gout. This condition was noted to have improved

with medication by September 14, 989. The note dated

December 13, 1989 revealed that the claimant was no longer

experiencing acute gouty attacks. He was given a refill of

medications. On August 18, 1990, the claimant sought a refill of

his Timoptic eyedrops. His blood pressure at that time was

148/100. It was noted that he was experiencing no current

problems (Exhibit 17). The claimant was seen on August 14,

1992 with urgency, excessive urination and the inability to

control his water, increased thirst and loss of weight.

Laboratory testing revealed a blood glucose of 334mg/dL. The

claimant was diagnosed as having probable diabetes mellitus

and he was to be seen in follow-up several days later for further

testing. The records from August 14, 1992 further revealed that

the claimant continued to be treated for glaucoma and skin

condition (Exhibit 22).

As indicated above, Christopher Cooper, the claimant’s

attorney, appeared at the hearing on August 20, 199Z on behalf

of the claimant. He reiterated the claimant’s wish not to appear

at a hearing. On behalf of the claimant, he argued that the

claimant has diabetes mellitus and glaucoma of almost legal

blindness level. He stated that the claimant has high blood sugar

and was on medication for this. The claimant developed an

inability to control his urine. He continues to have gout. The

claimant’s attorney was unaware of whether the claimant used

any type of protection against urinary incontinence. He also was

unaware when this problem began for the claimant. It was noted

that the administration had scheduled consultative examinations

for evaluation of the claimant’s eye condition on two occasions

but that the claimant did not appear for either scheduled

examination. The claimant’s attorney stated that the claimant

would not submit to a consultative examination.

The medical record documents that the claimant has stable

glaucoma, gout, high blood pressure, dermatitis and diabetes

mellitus. These impairments are considered “severe” within the

specialized meaning of the Social Security Act because they

significantly interfere with the claimant’s ability to engage in

basic work activities. Although severe, the claimant’s

impairments do not meet or equal the level of severity described

in the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of

Regulations No. 4. For example, with respect to the claimant's

gout, the record fails to reveal a history of persistent joint pain,

swelling and tenderness involving multiple major joint with

signs of joint inflammation on current physical examination

despite prescribed therapy for at least three months resulting in

significant restriction of function on the affected joints and

clinical activity expected to last at least 12 months as required

for inflammatory arthritis in section 1.02 of the Listing of

Impairments in Appendix 1. With respect to the claimant's

glaucoma, the evidence fails to reveal findings as described in

section 2.02 of the Listings regarding impairment of central

visual acuity, section 2.03 regarding contraction of peripheral

visual fields in the better eye, or section 2.04 regarding loss of

visual efficiency. While there is evidence of high blood pressure,

the record fails to reveal end organ damage or other severe

complications as described in section 4.03 for hypertensive

vascular disease. Although the claimant has a history of

dermatitis, the record does not identify a condition with

appropriate medical findings as described in section 8.01

regarding impairments of the skin. There is recent evidence to

indicate the existence of diabetes mellitus. However, the record

fails to describe any of the severe associated complications in

section 9.08 of the Listings regarding diabetes mellitus.

The record fails to demonstrate that the claimant’s combination

of impairments has interfered with his ability to engage in

“medium” work pursuant to 20 CFR 404.1567, which would

not involve heavy lifting or carrying. While the record

documents a history of glaucoma requiring treatment with

eyedrops, there is no evidence of serious impairment of central

visual acuity or visual fields”. Since the claimant’s alleged onset

date of disability, the only evidence regarding the diagnostic

testing of the claimant’s vision is that from Dr. Hatch regarding

his examination of the claimant on March 21, 1990. The results

failed to identify the existence of an impairment that has failed

to identify the existence of an impairment that has resulted in

functional limitations including the ability to engage in work

activity. Further medical evaluation of this condition has been

attempted, but the claimant refuses to undergo ophthalmologic

evaluation conducted at the expense of the government. The

record reveals that the claimant has a history of gout primarily

affecting the right big toe, but acute difficulty in this regard has

resolved with appropriate medical treatment. The claimant has

alleged hypertension and there is evidence of high blood

pressure which is described in the note of August 18, 1990

where the blood pressure of 148/100 was noted. However, it

does not appear that the claimant has experienced persistent

high blood pressure and there is no evidence of any

complications or end organ damage associated with

hypertension. A history of folliculitis and seborrheic dermatitis

is in the medical record, but the record reveals that this

condition has responded satisfactorily to medications. The

claimant has recently been evaluated for symptomatology

including urinary frequency, excessive thirst, weight loss, and

inability to control urination. Diagnostic testing revealed

elevated glucose levels and probable diabetes, was diagnosed.

The claimant’s attorney indicated that the claimant is being

treated with medication for diabetes, but there is no significant

persistent problem .There is no indication in the medical record

regarding what, if any, medications are necessary. There is no

evidence of complications of end organ damage associated with

diabetes. As a result, the record fails to identify an impairment

or combination of impairments which would interfere with the

claimant’s ability to perform at least medium work.

In letters submitted by the claimant, he has alleged multiple

medical conditions resulting in marked functional limitations

including blindness. In evaluating the claimant’s complaints, full

consideration has been given to all of the medical and other

evidence that reflects on the impairments and resuit limitations

SBEST AVAI

of function. See Social Security Ruling 88-13 and 20 CFR

404.1529. While subjective complaints including pain may be

disavling, it must be established that there is a medically

ascertainable source for the claimant’s subjective complaints.

An impairment must result from “anatomical, physical or

psychological abnormality which can be shown by medically

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.”

Section 223(d)(3) of the Act. Where pain is alleged, it is

necessary to examine whether there is objective medical

evidence of an underlying medical condition. If there is, an

examination is made as to whether: (1) objective evidence

confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from the

conditions; or (2) the objectively established medical condition

is of such severity that it can reasonably be expected to produce

the alleged disabling pain. Duncan v. Secretary, 801F2nd 847,

852-53 (6th Cir. 1986).

The claimant’s complaints of discomfort, blindness and

associated functional limitations since © farch 30, 1988 are

unsupported to the extent alleged. As dicated above, the

documentary medical evidence of record fails to demonstrate

impairments indicative of the incapacitating subjective

complaints alleged by the claimant. The claimant declined the

opportunity to appear and testify at a hearing although he

insisted upon a hearing with only his attorney present on his

behalf. Because of the limited medical evidence provided,

attempts have been made to develop further the medical record.

However, the claimant has refused to attend any consultative

medical examinations. As the claimant declined to appear at the

hearing, the undersigned did not have the opportunity to further

investigate the claimant’s current living situation including his

activities of daily living, his current complaints and his ongoing

treatment and medical care. There is no indication in the record

that the claimant takes medication which results in any adverse

reactions. Under the Duncan criteria the objective evidence

does not confirm the severity of the claimant’s alleged pain and

other functional restrictions arising from the claimant’s

documented conditions. His objectively established medical

conditions are not of such severity as to reasonably be expected

to produce disabling discomfort or other disabling functional

limitations.

The remaining issue is whether the claimant’s impairments

prevent him from performing his past work or other kinds of

substantial gainful activity. The claimant bears the burden of

showing inability to perform his prior work, but once this

burden is met, it shifts to the Secretary to show that there are

other jobs that the claimant can perform which exist in

significant numbers in the economy.

The record fails to identify an impairment or combination of

impairments which would interfere with the claimant’s ability to

engage in medium work which would not involve lifting or

carrying in excess of 50 pounds at a time occasionally or 25

pounds frequently. According to the claimant’s description of

his past relevant work in the disability report of July 16, 1990,

his prior work did not involve lifting or carrying in excess of 50

pounds occasionally or 25 pounds frequently (Exhibit 13 pp. 5-

6). Accordingly, the claimant was not precluded from

performing any of his past work for any prolonged period which

lasted or could be expected to last for at least 12 continuous

months commencing on or before the date of this decision. The

claimant, then, must be found “not disabled” within the meaning

of the Social Security Act, as amended, pursuant to 20 CFR

404.1520(e).

The findings of the Administrative Law Judge are that, since

March 30, 1988, the claimant: (1) has met the earnings

requirements for purposes of eligibility for Medicare coverage

based upon disability; (2) has not engaged in substantial gainful

work activity; (3) has suffered from a combination of severe

impairments; (4) has impairments that have not met or equalled

in severity the level of the Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1

to Subpart P of Regulations No. 4; (5) has not been precluded

from performing “medium work” for any prolonged period

which lasted or could be expected to last for at least 12

continuous months; and (6) has aot been precluded from

performing his past relevant work as an operations research

analyst, logistics specialist, supply systems analyst or supply

specialist. I therefore find that the claimant was “not disabled”

within the meaning of the Social Security Act, as amended, at

any time commencing on or before the date of this decision, for

purposes of qualifying for hospital insurance benefits

(Medicare). }

DECISION

It is the decision of the Administrative Law Judge that, based

upon the application filed on July 16, 1990, the claimant is not

eligible for hospital insurance benefits (Medicare) under section

226 of the Social Security Act, as amended, as a disabled

government employee, as he has not met the disability

requirements for entitlement to such benefits at any time

commencing on or before the date of this decision.

/s/ James D. Booker

Administrative Law Judge

Date, September 23, 1992

App 13a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON,

Plaintiff, .

Vv CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-A-648-N

DONNA SHALALA, COMPLAINT

Secretary of Health

and Human Services,

Defendant

PARTIES

5 Plaintiff, Raymond Jackson, Social Security

Number 423-42-1287, is an adult citizen of the United States

and resides in Montgomery, Alabama.

2. Defendant, Donna Shalala, is the Secretary of

health and Human Services, and as such is responsible for the

operation of that department, including the Social Security

Administration.

JURISDICTION 7

3. This is a complaint seeking review of a final

decision of defendant denying plaintiff's application for

disability benefits under the Social Security program and for

Medicare.

4. This Court has jurisdiction by virtue of 42 USC

§ 405(g).

FACTS

5. Plaintiff's benefits were denied solely on the

founds that he did not suffer from a “disability” as defined by 42

USC § 423.

6. Plaintiff is and has since the date of his

application been unable to engage in any substantial gainful

ALL OBR AR A Ry BINT 0!

eins aa. ieee oe

activity by reason of medically determinable physical and mental

impairments.

7. Defendant failed to develop the medical record

fully in various ways, including by failing to obtain medical

records from all the medical providers whose names and

addresses plaintiff supplied to defendant. Defendant particularly

failed to develop evidence regarding plaintiff's medical

problems with stress.

8. Plaintiff filed his application for benefits alleging

onset of disability beginning 30 March 1988. The initial

application was denied and a reconsideration application was

denied. Upon request for such an Administrative Law Judge

held a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge entered a

decision of denial dated 9-23-92. The Appeals Council denied

plaintiff's request dated 10-20-92 for review of the denial

decision of the Administrative Law Judge by its order dated 26

March 1993, which the plaintiff received 31 March 1993.

9. Defendant’s decision denying plaintiff disability

benefits is not supported by substantial evidence in the record

and results from an incorrect application of law and regulation

to the facts of plaintiff's case.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court grant the

following relief:

a. Reverse the decision of defendant denying plaintiff

Social Security benefits;

b. Order defendant to provide plaintiff with Medicare

coverage; and

C. Grant such other further and different relief as the Court

may deem just and proper.

Raymond Jackson, Plaintiff /s/

225 Conrad Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36110

(205) 265-8801

Filed: 5/21/93

App l4a

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

Vv CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-1-648-N

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, Security

of Health and Human Services,

Defendant

ANSWER

Comes now the defendant, by and through James Eldon

Wilson, United States Attorney for the Middle District of

Alabama, and for answer to the complaint heretofore filed in

this cause, shows the following:

1. Defendant admits the allegations contained in

paragraphs one, two, three, four and five.

a Defendant denies the allegations contained in

paragraphs six and seven.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in

paragraph eight. ;

4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in

paragraph nine.

5. The findings of fact of the Secretary of Health

and Human Services are supported by substantial evidence and

are conclusive.

6. In accordance with section 205(g) of the Social

Security Act, 42 USC 405(g), Defendant files as part of the

answer a certified copy of the transcript of the record including

the evidence upon which the findings and decisions complained

of are based.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment

dismissing the complaint with costs and disbursements and for

judgment in accordance with section 205(g) of the Social

Security Act, 42 USC 405(g) affirming the Secretary’s decision.

JAMES ELDON WILSON

United States Attorney

By: DAVID L. ALLRED /s/

Assistant United States Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the

foregoing Answer on plaintiff, Raymond Jackson, by mailing

him a copy of same, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to

225 Conrad Street, Montgomery, AL 36110.

Dated this 8th day of September, 1993.

David L. Allred /s/

Assistant United States Attorney

P. O. Box 197

Montgomery, AL 36101

(205) 223-7280

App 16a

Department of Health and Human Services

Social Security Administration

Form Approved

OMB No. 0960-0141

DISABILITY REPORT

PLEASE PRINT, TYPE OR WRITE CLEARLY AND

ANSWER ALL ITEMS TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.

If you are filing on behalf of someone else, enter his or her

name and social security number in the space provided and

answer all questions. COMPLETE ANSWERS WILL AID IN

PROCESSING THIS CLAIM.

Privacy Act/Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The Social

Security Administration is authorized to collect the information

on this form under sections 205(a), 223(d) and 1633(a) of the

Social Security Act. The information on this form is needed by

Social Security to make a decision on your claim. While giving

us the information on this form is voluntary, failure to provide

all or part of the requested information could prevent an

accurate or timely decision on your claim and could result in the

loss of benefits. Although the information you furnish on this

form is almost never used for any propose other than making a

determination on your disability claim, such information may be

disclosed by the Social Security Administration as follows: (1)

To enable a third party or agency to assist Social Security in

establishing rights to Social Security benefits and/or coverage;

(2) to comply with Federal laws requiring the release of

information from Social Security records (e.g., to the General

Accounting Office and the Veterans Administration); and (3) to

facilitate statistical research and audit activities necessary to

assure the integrity and improvement of the Social Security

programs (e.g., to the Bureau of the Census and private

concerns under contract to Social Security). Those and other

reasons why information about you may be used or given out

are explained in the Federal Register. If you would like more

information about this, any Social Security office can assist you.

A. Name of Claimant - Raymond Jackson

B. Social Security Number - 423/42/1287

c. Telephone Number - 205-265-8801

D. What is your disabling condition? - Glaucoma

Part I - Information About Your Condition

1. When did your condition first bother you - 03/31/71

2a Did you work after the date shown in item 1? - yes

. 2b If you did work since the date in item 1, did your

condition cause you to change

Your job or job duties - no

Your hours of work? - no

Your attendance? - no

Anything else about your work? - no

3A. _ When did your condition finally make you stop

working? - 03/30/88.

3B _—sCExplain how your condition now keeps you from

working.

I’m not able to see well enougi: to perform a job.

Exhibit No. 13

Page 1 of 8

eT Se ee m

web ener elec Aci btniDs

.

4 A We i NBO het, Bw

A en 5 MEE a5) a rice age Oi te

App 17a

Names, Addressees, Phone Numbers of Doctors, Approximate

Dates of Treatment (Also Includes Hospitals, Clinics, and

Institutions that Treated You and Hospital or Clinic Telephone

Number if Known)

l. Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong?

Treatment Provided:

2. Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

3. Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Dr. Harold A. Hatcher

20/20 Ophthalmic Associates

2020 Normandie Drive

Montgomery, AL 36111

(205) 281-4820

3/89, 7/89, 1988, 11/89, 3/90

*GLAUCOMA Bilateral Field of

Vision Loss Rt Eye 22/Left Eye:

22

Testing and Timolol 0.5% Op Sol

(Timoptic)

Dr. Chadala Ramesh

VA Medical Center (119)

215 Perry Hill Road

Montgomery, AL 36193

(205) 272-4670

12/89

Gout (Arthritis)

Colchicine 0.6 Mg Ct

Dr. Thomas Turner

VA Medical Center (119)

215 Perry Hill Road

Montgomery, AL 36193

(205) 272-4670

10/89, 9/89, 9/89, 9/89, 9/89

Gout (Arthritis), Gout (Arthritis),

Gout (Arthritis), Rash (Skin

Disease), *(Glaucoma/Field of Vision Loss)

Treatment Provided:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

6. Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Aspirin 325 Mg Enteric Coated,

Allopurinol 300 Mg (2-

1/2loprim) Colchicine 0.6 Mg Ct,

Hydrocortisone 1% (Cream 30

Gm) Timolol 0.5% Sol

Dr. Mark S. Veres

4152 B Carmichael Road

Montgomery, AL 36106

(205 272-0080

9/89

Gout (Arthritis)

Indocin 50 Mg

Dr. Irvin London

VA Medical Center (119)

215 Perry Hill Road

Montgomery, AL 36193

(205) 272-4670

9/89, 9/89, 9/89

Skin Disease (Head/Hair), Skin

Disease, Skin Disease (Hair)

Desoxtmetasone 0.05% (P[prt),

Tetracycline 250 Mg (Caps),

Sebutone Shampoo (GE) 4 oz

Dr. Harry R. Det

VA Medical Center (119)

215 Perry Hill Road

Montgomery, AL 36193

(205) 272-4670

1988

*Glaucoma/Field of Vision Loss

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

10.

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Dr. Martinez

VA Medical Center

Jefferson Barracks

Grand Avenue

St Louis, MO 63120

(314) 894-4623

1988

*Glaucoma/Field of Vision Loss

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

Dr. Herrero, Wilfrido

VA Medical Center

Jefferson Barracks, Grand

Avenue

St Louis, MO 63120

(314) 894-4623

1987, 1986, 1986

*Glaucoma/Field of Vision Loss,

*Giaucoma/Field of Vision Loss,

Skin Disease

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic),

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic),

Selenium Sulfide 2.5% Shampoo

9 oz

Dr. Mark Konwiser

VA Medical Center

Jefferson Barracks, Grand

Avenue

St Louis, MO 63120

(314) 894-4623

1986

Skin Disease

Banoxyl 5 (Benzoil Peroxide 5%)

Dr. J. Grooms

VA Medical Center

Address: Dayton, Ohio 43418

Phone: (513) 268-6511

Date of Treatment: 5/85

What Was Wrong: Skin Disease, *Glaucoma/Field of

Vision Loss

Treatment Provided: Tetracyline 260 Mg Caps,

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

ll. Name: Dr. Edwards Kinkopf

Address: 2035 Miamiburg-Centerville

Road

Centerville, Ohio 45459

Phone: (513) 434-7353

Date of Treatment: 1985

What Was Wrong: _Job Related Stress/Hypertension

q Treatment Provided: Available in Applicant Medical

History File

12. Name: Dr. Charles F. Schrimpf

Southview Hospital

Address: 1997 Miamiburg Centerville

Road

Dayton, OH 45456

Phone: (513) 433-0454

. Date of Treatment: 1982, 1983, 1984

What Was Wrong: ‘*Glaucoma

Treatment Provided: Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

Stale Beare

: ilk mf ° , - ene

: 13. Name: Dr. Ralph C. Dilorio

Southern Eye Clinic

Address: 509 W. Main Street

Dothan, Alabama 36301

: Phone: (205) 794-2658

: Date of Treatment: 1981

What Was Wrong: *Glaucoma

14.

15.

16.

17.

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

VA Medical Center

42nd Street and Clement Street

San Francisco, CA

415-221-4810

1979, 1980

*Glaucoma

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

VA Medical Center

1670 Clairemont Road

Decatur, GA

404-321-6111

1977, 1978

*Glaucoma

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

Dr. Rosenthal

Stanford Medical Center

Stanford, CA

415-723-2300

1976

*Glaucoma

Timolol 0.5% Op Sol (Timoptic)

Dr. Robert L. Weisman

25 N. 14th Street

San Jose, CA 95112

408 Unknown

1971- 1975

*Glaucoma/Bilateral Satoma

Spifrin & Timolol 0.5% Op Sol

(Timoptic)

|

y

:

i

3

i

:

a

3

18.

19.

20.

21.

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Dr. David Bisno, LCDR MC

USNR

Head, Optometry Branch

Naval Aerospace Medical

Institute

Naval Aerospace Medical Center

US Naval Air Station

Pensacola, FL 32512

904-452-4354

5/27/71

*Glaucoma/Bilateral Scatomas

Epifrin

Dy. Fisher

Second Street

San Jose, CA 95112

408 - Unknown

1972

*Glaucoma/Bilateral Scatomas

Epifrin

*Includes Bilateral Scotomas and Field of Vision Loss

with Average Concentric Contraction in the Right Eye

Being 24 and in the Left Eye Being 22.

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

Name:

VA Medical Center

215 Perry Hill Road

Montgomery, AL 36193

(205) 272-4670

8/58 - 9/58

Occupational and Disease Injury

to Eye While in the US Air

Force, 1954 - 1958

Examination Only

VA Medical Center

Address:

Phone:

Date of Treatment:

What Was Wrong:

Treatment Provided:

3200 Vine Street

Cincinnati, OH 45220

513-861-3100 ext 4366

2/27/85

Dermaphytosis of the Feet/Skin

Disease

Available in Applicant VA

Medical Records

App 19a

8. Have you had any of the following tests in the last year?

Electrocardiogram - No

Chest X-Ray - No

Other X-Ray (name body part here) - No

Breathing Tests - No

Blood Tests - No

Other (Specify) - No

10.‘ Has your doctor told you to cut back or limit your

activities in any way? - No.

11. Describe your daily activities in the following areas and

state what and how much you do of each and how often

you do it:

. Household Maintenance (including cooking, cleaning, shopping,

and odd jobs around the house as well as any other similar

activities):

I can help my wife out.

| Recreational activities and hobbies (hunting, fishing, bowling,

hiking, musical instruments, etc.): - None

Social contacts (visits with friends, relatives, neighbors):

They visit me.

Other (drive car, motorcycle, ride bus, etc.)

Can drive.

ee et ee

20a

#4 A summary of where you worked in past 15 years and the

kind of work you did.

Date:

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

1988 - 7/90

Unemployed

N/A

N/A

1985 - 3/88

HQ US Army Aviation Systems

Command

4300 Goodfellow Bivd.

St. Louis, MO 69120

Operations Research Analyst

1982 - 7/85

HQ Air Force Logistic Command

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

Operations Research Analyst

1980-12/81

US Army Aviation Center

Fort Rucker, AL

Operations Research Analyst

1979-9/80

HQ Sixth US Army, Persidio

San Francisco, CA

Logistics Met Specialist

1977-6/79

HQ US Army Forces Command

Atlanta, GA

Supply System Analyst

Sil 1 i 8 So See cantata in RNA dn ean Neila

bi ‘aininens | - iis 0

atte. iribies Liem SacI scien tah Nadie cai

Date ~

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

Date

Employer

Address

Type Work Performed

1974 - 9/77

Sharpe Army Depot

Lathrop, CA

Supply Specialist

1973-7/74

Harry Diamond Laboratory

Red River Army Depot

Texarkana, TX

Supply Intern

1973-8/73

US Postal Service

San Jose, CA

Postal Clerk

12.

13.

14.

App 2la

Part IV - Information About Your Education

What is the highest grade of school that you completed

and when?

12 HS Grad, 1951; BS, 1959; MBA, 1976; MA,

1980

Have you gone to trade or vocational school or had any

type of special training? - No.

Part V - Information About the Work You Did

List all jobs you have had in the last 15 years before you

stopped working, beginning with your usual job.

Normally, this will be the kind of work you did the

longest. (If you have a 6th grade education or less,

AND did only heavy unskilled labor for 35 years or

more, list all of the jobs you have had since you began

to work. If you need more space, use Part VI.)

Job Title Research Analyst

Type of Business US Government

Date

10/80 - 3/85

Days Per Week 5

Rate of Pay $37,000

Job Title Supply

Type of Business US Government

Date

9/73 - 10/80

Days Per Week 5

Rate of Pay Varied

ISA

Provide the following information for your usual job

shown in item 14, line 1.

In your job did you: *Use machines, tools, or equipment

i of any kind? - Yes.

if *Use technical knowledge or skills? - Yes.

E *Do any writing, complete reports, or perform similar

: duties? - Yes.

i Have supervisory responsibilities? - Yes.

how you did it) below. Also, explain all "Yes" answers

by giving a FULL DESCRIPTION of: the types of

i machines, tools, or equipment you used and the exact

i operation you performed; the technical knowledge or

; skills involved; the type of writing you did, and the

nature of any reports; and the number of people you

supervised and the extent of your supervision:

j

1SB__ Describe your basic duties (explain what you did and

Defined problems, finding solutions.

App 22a

15C. Describe the kind and amount of physical activity this

job involved during typical day in terms of:

*Walking (circle the number of hours a day spent

walking) - 4

*Sitting (circle the number of hours a day spent sitting)

a]

*Bending (circle how often a day you had to bend) -

Occasionally

*Reaching (circle how often a day you had to reach) -

Occasionally

*Lifting and Carrying: Describe below what was lifted,

and how far it was carried. Check heaviest weight lifted,

and weight frequently lifted and/or carried:

Picked up brief cases/book etc. weighing 30 Ibs or so.

Heaviest Weight Lifted - 50 Ibs.

Weight Frequently Lifted/Carried - Up to 25 lbs.

Sign here - /s/ Raymond Jackson

Date - 07/16/90

App 23a

Name of Claimant - Raymond Jackson

H Social Security Number - 423-42-1287

17A Does the claimaat speak English? - Yes

17B Does the claimant need assistance in prosecuting his or

her claim? - No.

17C_ Can the claimant (or his representative) be readily

reached by telephone with no communication problems

due to language, speech or hearing difficulties? - Yes.

App 24a

18A Check each item to indicate of any difficulty was

observed:

Reading - No Understanding - No

Writing - No Using Hands - No

Answering - No Breathing - No

Hearing - No Seeing - No

Sitting - No Walking - No

18C Describe the claimant fully (e.g., general build, height,

weight, behavior, any difficulties that add to or

supplement those noted above, etc.):

5'10-1/2"; 195 Ibs; neat.

20 DO or BO curtailed completion of Parts III-V per DI

11005.035 (DI 20501.005) - No.

21 Is capability development by the DDS necessary? - No.

22 Is development of work activity necessary? - No

23 SSA-3368-BK taken by: - Personal Interview

24 Form Supplemented - No

Signature - /s/ Raymond Jackson

Date - 07/16/90

App 25a

Report of Medical Examination

SS # 423-49-1287

664 068/1355

Name - Raymond Jackson

Position - Lt USN

Identification No - 644068

Home Address 820 Christy Court/Pensacola, FL 32508

Purpose of Examination - Discharge; Date, 30 June 71

Date of Examination - March 31, 1971

Sex - Male; Race - Malayan

Total Years of Service - 15; USN; VT-6, Whiting Field

Date of Birth - January 29, 1934

Place of Birth - Saltipa, AL

Next of Kin - Mrs. Rogers M. Jackson (Wife), same as #4

Examiner and Address:

Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida 32508

Other Information - Rel:

Clinical Evaluation- #24 Eyes, Glaucoma, Simple, chronic

Both Eyes

Missing Teeth

Right Upper - 2; Right Lower - 31

Left Upper - 13, 15; Left Lower - 17, 18

Remarks and Additional Dental Defects and Diseases

Type II, Class I, Qualified

Laboratory Findings

Urinalysis: A. Specific Gravity 1.013

Albumin - Negative

Sugar - Negative

Microscopic - NAME:

Chest X-Ray #881-71 NAS PNCLA FLA, 70MM

DTD: 3/31/71; Result:

WNC

EKG - Normal

Blood Type and RH Factor - AB Neg

Other Tests - When Indicated

het ee ee

App 26a

Measurements and Other Findings

Height - 70"; Weight - 175; Hair Color - Black

Eye Color - Brown; Build - Medium; Temperature - Normal

Blood Pressure - 11¢°% +; Pulse - 60

Distant Vision - Rigtn 20/200 Corr to 20/20 By -3.75 S. Sphere

Left 20/200 Corr to 20/20 by -3.75 S -0.25 CX X10§

Color Vision - Passed Falant

Field of Vision - Normal

Night Vision - N/A

Red Lens Test - N/A

Intraocular Tension - Normal

Audiometer

250 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000

256 S512 1024 2048 2896 4096 6144 8192

a ellie aka 5 5 S's

ee eS 0 5 0 = 5 x

I certify that I have been informed and understand the

provisions of BuMed Instruction §120.0

/s/ Raymond Jackson

74. Summary of Defects and Diagnoses (list diagnoses with

item numbers)

#59 DVA Corrected to 20/20 Bilaterally NCD.

#24 Eyes, Glaucoma, simple, chronic, both eyes.

75. | Recommendations - Further Specialist Examinations

Indicated - None.

77. | Examinee - Is Qualified for Discharge and to perform all

the duties of his rank at sea or on foreign shore.

79 F.C. Newton, Lt Mc USNR NAS PNCLA FLA//s/

David C. Bisno, Ophthalmologist USNH Pncia,

Fla /s/

W. K. Walker, LCDR DC USNR NAS PNCLA

FLA /s/

App 27a

NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL INSTITUTE

NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL CENTER

PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32512

In Reply Refer To

432/him

8 June 1971

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Lt Raymond Jackson was first seen by Ophthalmology

on 27 May 1971 at which time the patient told us that his father

had chronic simple glaucoma and apparently went blind from

the disease. The patient presented as a 37 year old male with a

pressure of 26 in the right eye and 31 in the left eye. The

patient’s visual acuity was corrected to 20/20 in each eye with a

-3.75 sphere.

Examination of his fundi revealed bilateral deep wide

cupping with poor rims in each eye and with displacement of

the vessels nasally in each eye. Goldman Field examinations of

each eye revealed 1) baring of the blind spot bilaterally, 2)

bilateral constriction of the fields and 3) suggestive evidence of

bilateral arcuate scotomas. The patient returned on numerous

occasions for repeated pressures all of which were in the mid

twenties to low thirties. Tonography revealed an outflow

facility in the right eye of .40 and in the left eye of .14.

Because of 1) the bilateral elevated pressures, 2)

pathologic cupping, 3) abnormal tonogram on the left, and 4)

bilateral field changes with 5) a strong positive family history of

chronic simple glaucoma, it was felt that this diagnosis was

justified in this patient. The patient was started on Epifrin, 1

drop to each eye every 12 hours. The patient is leaving the

Pensacola area and apparently moving to San Jose, California.

It was suggested to him that he obtain follow-up ophthalmic

care in the San Jose area.

David Bisno, LCDR MC USNR /s/

Head, Optometry Branch

~ a cthnd Seka he

WO BNAVWVSLYN =

App 28a

Department of Veterans Affairs - Rating Decision

Regional office No - 322

Type of Rating - Disability

Original Disability Rating?

C. File No. - C 20 783 486

Vet’s Initials and Surname - R. Jackson

Copy to

Vet’s Soc Sec No - 423 42 1287

Date of Claim - 3/20/90

Date of this Rating - 6/28/90

Date of Birth - 1/29/34

Date of Death.

Date of Last Examination - 3/21/90

Date of Future Physical Examination - No Exam

Employable (Compensation Only) - Yes

Narrative

J. Reopened claim

I. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for

service connected glaucoma, including

entitlement to a total disability evaluation due to

individual unemployability.

E. VA ophthalmology examination on 3/21/90.

F. Ration of 1/4/90, is referenced for sake of

brevity. He underwent a Veterans

Administration eye examination on 3/29/89, and

the evaluation of his service connected eye

condition was increased to 30 percent based on

loss of his vision. His Notice of Disagreement as

to this issue was received 10/6/89, and he has

completed another Veterans Administration

examination. This examination indicates that his

best corrected vision is 20/25 in the right eye and

20/40 in the left eye. He also has decreased field

of vision with concentric contraction average in

the right-eye being 24 and in the left eye being 22.

D. Based on the veteran’s average concentric

contraction of 24 in the right eye and 22 in the

left eye, the proper evaluation assignable under

DC 6080 is now 50 percent. This increase is

being granted to the veteran effective 10/6/89,

date of receipt of Notice of Disagreement as this

date is considered a reopened date for him.

Individual unemployability is not established.

1 SC

6080 Glaucoma with Bilateral Visual Field Impairment

30% from 11/4/88 - (VE INC)

50% from 10/6/89

7806 Dermatophytosis of the Feet

0% from 11/27/84 (PTE INC)

8. N.S.C. (KC, PTE)

5017 Gout

6079 Astigmatism with Bilateral vision Loss (C&D

Abnormality)

6081 Bilateral Scotomas (not shown)

7817 Scalp Dermatitis

7899 - 7806 Chronic Tinea Cruris

COMB: 30% From 11/4/88

50% From 10/6/89

17 B. Individual unemployability not found.

24. Medical Rating Specialist - R. L. Dorrough, MD /s/

; 25. Rating Specialist - A. W. Jordan, 036 /s/

26. Rating Specialist - E. H. Teel /s/

VA Form 21-6796-1

SEP 1986

bp D(6-28-90) T(7-3-90 9751Q)

App 30a

42 USCS 416(i) Disability; period of disability

(1) Except for purposes of sections 402(d), 402(e), 402(f), 423

and 425 of this title, the term “disability” means (A) inability to

engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can

be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be expected

to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, or

(B) blindness; and the term “blindness” means central visual

acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a

correcting lens. An eye which is accompanied by a limitation in

the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual

field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees shall be

considered for purposes of this paragraph as having a central

visual acuity of 20/200 or less. The provisions of paragraphs

(2)(A), (2)(B), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of section 423(d) of this

title shall be applied for purposes of determining whether an

individual is under a disability within the meaning of the first

sentence of this paragraph in the same manner as they are

applied for purposes of paragraph (1) of such section. Nothing

in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the

Commissioner of Social Security or any other officer or

employee of the United States to interfere in any way with the

practice of medicine or with relationships between practitioners

of medicine and their patients, or to exercise any supervision or

control over the administration or operation of any hospital.

App 3la

Veterans Administration

1240 East Ninth Street

Cleveland OH 44199 May 7, 1995

In Reply to :21/24

Raymond Jackson File Number

174 Zengel Drive 20-783-486/00

Centerville, OH 45459 R JACKS

Your claim for Disability Compensation has been approved as

follows:

Monthly Rage/ $122.00 Effective Date/12/01/84

Service connection has been established for:

Loss of Field of Vision - 20%

Dermatophytosis - 0%

Combined - 20%

The combined evaluation is not determined by adding the

percentage of your disabilities as shown, but is computed by

using a combined rating table.

This award is subject to recoupment of $14000.00 which

represents 75% of the Readjustment Pay received from the

Service department. When this amount is recovered, full

compensation will be paid.

Encl: 1B 04-81-6 21-8764

App 32A

42 USCS 423 (d) “Disability” defined

(1) The term “disability” means-

(A) inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by

reason of any medically determinable physical or mental

impairment which can be expected to result in death or which

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of

not less than 12 months; or

(B) in the case of an individual who has attained the age of 55

and is blind (within the meaning of “blindness” as defined in

section 416(i){1) of this title), inability by reason of such

blindness to engage in substantial gainful activity requiring skills

or abilities comparable to those of any gainful activity in which

he has previously engaged with some regularity and over a

substantial period of time.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)

(A) An individual shall be determined to be under a disability

only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of

such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work

but cannot, considering his age, education, and work

experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work

which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether

such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or

whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he

would be hired if he applied for work. For purposes of the

preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), “work

which exists in the national economy” means work which exists

in significant numbers either in the region where such individual

lives or in several regions of the country.

(B) In determining whether an individual’s physical or mental

impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity

that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of

eligibility under this section, the Commissioner of Social

Security shall consider the combined effect of all of the

individual’s impairments without regard to whether any such

impairment, if considered separately, would be of such severity.

If the Commissioner of Social Security does find a medically

severe combination of impairments, the combined impact of the

impairments shall be considered throughout the disability

determination process.

(B) In making any determination with respect to whether an

individual is under a disability or continues to be under a

disability, the Commissioner of Social Security shall consider all

evidence available in such individual’s case record, and shall

develop a complete medical history of at least the preceding

twelve months for any case in which a determination is made

that the individual is not under a disability. In making any

determination the Commissioner of Social Security shall make

every reasonable effort to obtain from the individual's treating

physician (or other treating health care provider) all medical

evidence, including diagnostic tests, necessary in order to

properly make such determination, prior to evaluating medical

evidence obtained from any other source on a consultative

basis.

App 33(a)

20 CFR 416.920(d) Evaluation of Disability of Adults

When your impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment in

appendix 1. If you have an impairment(s) which meets the

duration requirement and is listed in appendix 1 or is equal to a

listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled without

considering your age, education, and work experience.

20 CFR 416.920a Evaluation of Mental Impairments (a)

General

The steps outlined in §416.920 apply to the evaluation

of physical and mental impairments. In addition, in evaluating

the severity of mental impairments for adults (persons age 18

and over) and in persons under age 18 when part A of the

Listing of Impairments is used, a special procedure must be

followed by us at each level of administrative review. Following

this procedure will assist us in:

(1) Identifying additional evidence necessary for the

determination of impairment severity;

(2) Considering and evaluating aspects of the mental

disorder(s) relevant to your ability to work; and

(3) Organizing and presenting the findings in a clear,

20 CFR 404. 1520(d) Evaluation of Disability in General

(d) | When your impairment(s) meets or equals a

listed impairment in appendix 1. If you have an impairment(s)

which meets the duration requirement and is listed in appendix |

or is equal to a listed impairment(s), we will find you disabled

20 CFR 404.1520a Evaluation of Mental Impairments

(a) General. The steps outlined in §404.1520 apply to

the evaluation of physical and mental impairments. In addition,

in evaluating the severity of mental impairments for adults

(persons age 28 and over) and in persons under age 18 when

Part A of the Listing of Impairments is used, a special

procedure must be followed by us at each level of

administrative review. Following this procedure will assist us in:

(1) Identifying additional evidence necessary for the

determination of impairment severity;

(2) Considering and evaluating aspects of the mental

disorder(s) relevant to your ability to work; and

(3) Organizing and presenting the findings in a clear,

App 34a

20 CFR §404.1523 Multiple Impairments.

In determining whether your physical or mental

impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity

that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of

eligibility under the law, we will consider the combined effect of

all of your impairments without regard to whether any such

impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient

severity. If we do find a medically severe combination of

impairments, the combined impact of the impairments will be

considered throughout the disability determination process. If

we do not find that you have a medically severe combination of

impairments, we will determine that you are not disabled (see

§404. 1520).

20 CFR § 404.1525 Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1.

(a) Purpose of the Listing of Impairments. The Listing

of Impairments describes, for each of the major body systems,

impairments which are considered severe enough to prevent a

person from doing any gainful activity. Most of the listed

impairments are permanent or expected to result in death, or a

specific statement of duration is made. For all others, the

evidence must show that the impairment has lasted or is

expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months.

20 CFR § 404.1526 Medical Equivalence.

(a) How medical equivalence is determined. We will

decide that your impairment(s) is medically equivalent to a

listed impairment in appendix | if the medical findings are at

least equal in severity and duration to the listed findings. We

will compare the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings

about your impairment(s), as shown in the medical evidence we

have about your claim, with the medical criteria, which with the

listed impairment. If your impairment is not listed, we will

consider the listed impairment most like your impairment to

decide whether your impairment is medically equal. If you have

more than one impairment, and none of them meets or equals a

listed impairment, we will review the symptoms, signs, and

laboratory findings about your impairments to determine

whether the combination of your impairments is medically equal

to any listed impairment.

App 35a

IV 42 USCS 405 Evidence, Procedure and Certification for

Payments.

(g) Judicial Review

Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary

made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the

amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by

a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to

him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the

Secretary may allow. Such action shall te brought in the district

court of the United States for the judicial district in which the

plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he

does not reside or have his principal place of business within

any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia. As a part of his answer the Secretary

shall file a certified copy of the transcript of the record including

the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained

of are based. The court shall have power to enter, upon the

pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,

modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or

without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the

Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence,

shall be conclusive, and where a claim has been denied by the

Secretary or a decision is rendered under subsection (b) of this

section which is adverse to an individual who was a party to the

hearing before the Secretary, because of failure of the claimant

or such individual to submit proof in conformity, with any

regulation prescribed under subsection (a) of this section, the

court shall review only the question of conformity with such

regulations and the validity of such regulations. The court may,

on motion of the Secretary made for good cause shown before

he files his answer, remand the case to the Secretary for further

action by the Secretary, and it may at any time order additional

evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a

showing that there is new evidence which is material and that

there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence

into the record in a prior proceeding; and the Secretary shall,

after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional

evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or

his decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such

additional and modified findings of fact and decision shall be

reviewable only to the extent provided for review of the original

findings of fact and decision. The judgment of the court shall be

final except that it shall be subject to review in the same manner

as a judgment in other civil actions. Any action instituted in

accordance with this subsection shall survive notwithstanding

any change in the person occupying the office of Secretary or

any vacancy in such office.

(U) Redetermination of Entitlement

(1)(A) The Commissioner of Social Security shall

immediately redetermine the entitlement of individuals to

monthly insurance benefits under this subchapter if there is

reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the

application of the individual for such benefits, unless a United

States Attorney, or equivalent State prosecutor, with

jurisdiction over potential or actual related criminal cases,

certifies, in writing, that there is a substantial risk that such

action by the Commissioner of Social Security with regards to

beneficiaries in a particular investigation would jeopardize the

criminal prosecution of a person involved in a suspected fraud.

(B) When redetermining the entitlement, or making an

initial determination of entitlement, of an individual under this

subchapter, the Commissioner of Social Security shall disregard

any evidence if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar

fault was involved in the providing of such evidence.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), similar fault is

involved with respect to a determination if

(A) An incorrect or incomplete statement that is

material to the determination is knowingly made; or

(B) Information that is material to the determination is

knowingly concealed.

App 38a

III. 20 CFR Ch.111 (4/1/95 Edition) Social Security

Administration, HHS, Part 404, Subpt. P, App. | - Listing of

Impairments

Part A

Section 2.00 Special Senses and Speech

A. Ophthalmology

7. Statutory blindness. The term “statutory

blindness” refers to the degree of visual impairment which

defines the term “blindness” in the Social Security Act. Both

2.02 and 2.03 A and B denote statutory blindness.

Section 2.03 Contraction of peripheral visual field in the better

eye.

B. So the widest diameter subtends an angle to

greater than 20 degrees.

Section 9.08 Diabetes inellitus. With: B. Acidosis occurring at

least on the average of once ever 2 months, documented by

appropriate blood chemical tests (Phone: or CO,) or

biocarbonate (diabetic acidosis).

Section 5.08 Weight loss due to any persisting gastrointestinal

disorder: (The following weights are to be demonstrated to

have persisted for at least 3 months despite prescribed therapy

and expected to persist at this level for at least 12 months.)

With: B. Weight equal to or less than the values specified in

Table III or IV and one of the following abnormal findings on

repeated examinations: (4) Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus due

to pancreatic dysfunction with repeated hyperglycemia,

hypoglycemia, or ketosis.

Section 8.04. Deep-mycotic infections. With extensive

fungating, ulcerating lesions not responding to prescribed

treatment.

App 39a

Application for Disability Insurance Benefits

I apply for a period of disability and/or all insurance benefits for

which I am eligible under Title II and Part A of Title XVIII of

the Social Security Act, as presently Amended.

My name is Raymond Jackson.

My Social Security Number is 423-42-1287.

My date of birth is January 29, 1934.

I became unable to work because of my disabling condition on

March 30, 1988.

I am still disabled.

No previous application has been filed with the Social Security

Administration by or for me.

I have never had nor do I expect to have eligibility for a Federal

Agency monthly benefit based in whole or in part on my military

service.

I have not filed nor do I intend to file for any workers’

compensation, public disability or black lung benefits.

I am entitled to or I expect to become entitled to a pension or

annuity based in whole or in part on work after 1956 not

covered by Social Security.

I became entitled, or I expect to become entitled, to the pension

or annuity beginning April 1988.

I became eligible, or I expect to become eligible, for the pension

or annuity beginning April 1988.

The Social Security Administration and the State Agency

reviewing my claim does have my permission to contact my

employers.

I am married to Rogers M. Curry. We were married on July 25,

1961 in Memphis, TN by a clergyman or public official. My

spouse’s age or birthdate is October 21, 1933 and social

security number is 141-22-9024.

I was not previously married.

I do not have any children who may be eligible for social

security benefits.

I understand that I must provide medical evidence about my

disability, or assist the Social Security Administration in

obtaining the evidence.

I understand that I may be requesied by the State Disability

Determination Services to have an independent medical

examination at the expense of the Social Security

Administration.

I authorize any physician, hospital, agency, or other

organization to disclose any medical record or information

about my disability to the Social Security Administration or to

the State Agency that may review my claim or continuing

disability.

I authorize the Social Security Administration to release any

information about me to a physical or medical facility

preparatory to an examination or test. Results of such

examination or test may be released to my physician or other

treating source.

I authorize that information about my disability may be

furnished to any contractor for clerical services by the State

Disability Determination Services.

I agree to notify the Social Security Administration of all the

events as explained in the Rights and Responsibilities Pamphlet

given to me.

I agree to notify the Social Security Administration if:

-- My medical condition improves so that I would be able

to work, even though I have not yet returned to work.

-- I go to work whether as an employee or a self-employed

person.

-- I apply for or receive a decision on benefits under any

workers’ compensation law or plan (including black

lung benefits from the Department of Labor), or other

public denefit based on disability.

-- I a imprisoned for conviction of a felony.

The above events may affect my eligibility to disability benefits

as provided in the Social SECURITY Act, as amended.

I agree to notify the Social Security Administration if I become

entitled to a pension or annuity based on employment after

1956 not covered by Social Security, or if such pension or

annuity stops.

My reporting responsibilities have been explained to me.

I know that anyone who makes or causes to be made a false

statement or representation of material fact in an application or

for use in determining a right to payment under the Social

Security Act commits a crime punishable under Federal Law by

fine, imprisonment or both. I affirm that all information I have

given in connection with this claim is true.

My mailing address is: 225 Conrad Street/Montgomery, AL

36110

My telephone number is (205) 265-8801.

Raymond Jackson /s/

7/16/90

App 40a

Disability Determination Rationale

Name of Claimant - Raymond Jackson

SSN - 423-42-1287

Type of Claim - MQFE

The following reports had enough information to evaluate your

disability. If sufficient evidence was not obtained, the reason is

explained below.

Harold C. Hatcher, MD, report dated April 5, 1990

Mark D. Veres, DPM, report dated September 6, 1989

Veterans Medical Center, Report dated September 5, 1990 and

August 22, 1990

You said you were unable to work because of glaucoma.

The medical evidence showss you do have glaucoma but you

failed to keep the exam we set up for you which would

determine the current severity of your condition. There is

insuficient evidence to establish the existence of a disabling

condition.

Disability Examiner DDS - 1B432 SHD /s/

Date - 01/04/91

App 4la

FACTS ABOUT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY

February 2, 1989

THE FACTS YOU GAVE US

Your Name - Raymond Jackson

Your Social Security Number - 423-42-1287

Your Date of Birth - January 29, 1934

1988 Earnings - $36,486

1989 Earnings - $27,172

Your Estimated Future Average Yearly Earnings - $27,172

The Age You Plan To Retire - 55

We used these facts and the information already on our records

to prepare this statement for you. When we estimated your

benefits, ew included any 1988 and 1989 earnings you told us

about. We also included any future estimated earnings up to the

age you told us you plan to retire.

If you did not estimate your future earnings, we did not project

any future earnings for you.

YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS

The chart below shows the earnings on your Social Security

record. It also estimates the amount of Social Security taxes

you paid each year to finance benefits under Social Security and

Medicare. We show earnings only up to the maximum amount

of yearly earnings covered by Social Security. These maximum

amounts are also shown on the chart. The chart may not include

some or all of your earnings from last year because they may

not have been posted to your record yet.

Years - 1937 - 1950

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

$3,000

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - $0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - $0

Years - 1951

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

$3600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 54

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1952

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

3600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 1406

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 21

Years - 1953

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

3600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 3401

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 51

Years - 1954

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

3600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 773

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 15

Years - 1955

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4200

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1956

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4200

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1957

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4200

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 1778

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 40

Years - 1958

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4200

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 1071

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 24

Years - 1959

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1960

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 1155

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 34

Years - 1961

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 4050

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 121

Years - 1962

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 4438

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 138

Years - 1963

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed “arnings - 4800

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 174

Years - 1964

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 4800

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 174

Years - 1965

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

4800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 4800

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 174

Years - 1966

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

6600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 6600

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 277

Years - 1967

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

6600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 6600

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 290

Years - 1968

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

7800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 7800

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 343

Years - 1969

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

7800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 7800

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 343

Years - 1970

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

7800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 7800

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 374

Years - 1971

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

7800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 7649

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 397

Years - 1972

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

9000

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 9000

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 468

Years - 1973

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

10,800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 656

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 38

Years - 1974

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

13,200

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1975

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

14,100

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 1366

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 79

Years - 1976

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

15,300

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 1489

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 87

Years - 1977

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

16,500

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 857

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 50

Years - 1978

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

17,700

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 728

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid -

Years - 1979

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

22,900

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 832

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid -

Years - 1980

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

25,900

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1981

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

29,700

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1982

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

32,400

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1983

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

35,700

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1984

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

37,800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1985

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

39,600

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 20,511

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 1446

Years - 1986

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

42,000

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1987

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

43,800

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - 0

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - 0

Years - 1988

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

45,000

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - Net Yet Posted

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - Not Yet Posted

Years - 1989

Maximum Yearly Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax -

48,000

Your Social Security Taxed Earnings - Not Yet Posted

Estimated Social Security Taxes You Paid - Not Yet Posted

In addition to your covered Social Security earnings, you also

have government earnings on your record which will help you

qualify for medicare coverage in the future.

YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS

To qualify for benefits, you need credit for a certain amount of

work covered by Social Security. (See “How You Earn Social

Security Credits” on the reverse side.) The number of credits

you need will vary with the type of benefit. Under current law,

you do not need more than 40 credits to be fully insured for any

benefit.

Our review of your earnings, including any 1988 and 1989

earnings you told us about, shows that you now have at least 40

Social Security credits.

App 42a

ESTIMATED BENEFITS

RETIREMENT

You must have 40 Social Security credits to be fully insured for

retirement benefits. Assuming that you meet all the

requirements, here are estimates of your retirement benefits

based on your past and any projected earnings. The estimates

are in today’s dollars, but adjusted to account for average wage

growth in the national economy.

If you retire at age 55, your monthly benefit at age 62 in today’s

dollars would be about $420.

The earliest age at which you can receive an unreduced

retirement benefit is 65 years of age. We call this your full

retirement age. If you work until that age and then retire, your

monthly benefit in today’s dollars will be about $745.

If you continue to work and wait until you are 70 to receive

benefits, your monthly benefit in today’s dollars will be about

$1,080.

SURVIVORS

If you have a family, you must have 33 Social Security credits

for certain family members to receive benefits if you were to die

this year. They may also qualify if you earn 6 credits in the 3

years before your death. The number of credits a person needs

to be insured for survivors benefits increases each year until age

62, up to a maximum of 40 credits.

Here is an estimate of the benefits your family could receive if

you had enough credits to be insured, they qualified for benefits,

and you died this year:

Your child could receive a monthly benefit of about $435.

If your child and your surviving spouse who is caring for your

child both qualify, they could each receive a monthly benefit of

about $435.

When your surviving spouse reaches full retirement age, he or

she could receive a monthly benefit of about $585.

The total amount that we could pay your family each month is

about $1,075.

We may also be able to pay your surviving spouse or children a

one-time death benefit of ,

DISABILITY

Right now, you must have 33 Social Security credits to be

insured for disability benefits. And, 20 of these credits had to be

earned in the 10 year period immediately before you became

disabled. If you are blind or received disability benefits in the

past, you may need fewer credits. The number of credits a

person needs to be insured for disability benefits increases each

year until age 62, up to a maximum of 40 credits.

If you were disabled, had enough credits, and met the other

requirements for disability benefits, here is an estimate of the

benefits you could receive right now:

Your monthly benefit would be about $560

You and your eligible family members could receive up to a

monthly total of about $845.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

If you have any questions about this statement, please read the

information on the reverse side. If you still have questions,

please call 1-800-937-7005.

Form 10-1338 Work Copy

Tuskegee VA Medical Center Clinical Laboratory Report

Jackson, Raymong

SSN 423-42-1267; Sex M; Age 58; Loc: Eval

Prepared by: Feberio A

Specimen: Serlm

Test Name - Glucose

Result - 334. H

Units - mg/dL

Ref. Range - 70 - 100

Test Name - Urea Nitrogen

Result - 7. L

Units - mg/dL

Ref. Range - 8 - 20

Test Name - Oreatinine

Result - 1.1

Units - mg/dL

Ref. Range - .5 - 1.4

Test Name - Sodium

Result - 140.

Units - meg/L

Ref. Range - 137 - 145

Test Name - Potassium

Result - 4.3

Units - meg/L

Ref. Range - 3.6 - 5

App 43a

Ch 0814 72

08/14/92 10:08

8/14/92 14:08

Test Name - Chloride

Result - 100. L

Units - mmol/L

Ref. Range - 101 - 111

Test Name - 8802

Result - 27.0

Units - mmol/L

Ref. Range - 22 - 31

Key: "“L" = Abnormal Low

"H" = Abnormal High

"*" = Critical Value

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1995

NO.

RAYMOND JACKSON,

PETITIONER,

VS.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

RESPONDENT.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Raymond Jackson, do swear or declare that this date, August 15, 1996, pursuant to

Supreme Court Rules 29.3 and 29.4, I have served the Petition for a Wnt of Certiorari on each

party to the above proceeding, or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be

served by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the UNITED STATES

POSTAL SERVICE (USPS) mail properly addressed to each of them and postage prepaid.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

1) Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 10th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20530, 3 copies. (202) 514-2000.

2) Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, 900 AB Altmeyers Bidg, 6401

Security Bivd., Baltimore, MD 21235, 3 copies, (410) 965-3120.

3) Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First Street, NE,

Washington, DC 20543, 40 copies, (202) 479-3011

I certify, under penalty for perjury under laws of the United States of America, that

the foregoing is true and correct (28 US 1746)

Date: 8/15/96 won) Soe soy

avmnond Jack ;

Counsel of Record

225 Conrad Street

Montgomery, AL 36110

(334) 265-8801

Counsel for Petitioner