Clarence A. O’Brient lived in Kosciusko, Mississippi. He was a high school graduate who worked in the carpentry trade. At age 46 he developed a condition known as eventration of the diaphragm.
The diaphragm is a musculotendinous partition separating the thorax from the abdomen. It plays a major role in breathing because when it contracts the volume of the thorax increases and allows the lungs to inflates. Eventration is a condition where there is defective muscular contraction of the diaphragm.
Thus, eventration of the diaphragm negatively impacts one’s breathing capacity.
As a result of this condition, Mr. O’Brient could no longer perform the duties of his prior work and he applied for social security disability insurance benefits.
At a hearing Mr. O’Brient stated his willingness to work at some other type of job that was less strenuous than his former work as a foreman or timekeeper in the carpentry trade. He had looked for different types of lighter work, such as a parking lot attendant, night watchman, and janitor, but such jobs were not available to him in the local vicinity.
The hearing examiner found that even though Mr. O’Brient could not perform the duties of his prior work, the evidence showed that, based on his age, education and training, and giving consideration to his medical limitations, he was capable of sedentary or semi-sedentary work. He gave examples of work in radio or television repairs, and supervising construction work as types of work Mr. O’Brient could do without extensive vocational retraining.
Based on these findings, the agency denied Mr. O’Brient’s application for disability benefits. He appealed.
The federal district court held that the hearing examiner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. This decision was based, at least in part, on the evidence that light work of the type Mr. O’Brient could perform was not reasonably available in the general area in which he lived. He reversed the agency’s decision. Now it was Social Security’s turn to appeal.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, citing numerous cases, held that the question of disability did not turn upon whether or not there was lighter work available in the general area in which the claimant lived, but whether or not the claimant was able to adjust to other work given his age, education, and prior work experience, and considering the effect of his medical limitations. In effect, the question was whether or not the claimant was capable of any substantial gainful activity. If so, then he was not disabled.
The Court noted that Congress, in enacting the Social Security Disability Act, did not intend to pass an unemployment compensation law. The requirement of proving inability to do any substantial work for profit distinguished the disability law from a general unemployment compensation scheme. Thus, although Mr. O’Brient’s plight was a difficult one, he did not meet the requirements of the Act.
See Celebrezze v. O’Brient, 323 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1983).
See also Social Security Ruling 64-47c.
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.
