Gentry v. Schweiker

Can Back Pain Alone Qualify You for Social Security Disability in Montana? Gentry v. Schweiker, 513 F. Supp. 1020 (D. Mont. 1981)

Boland Aarab PLLP

Pain can be disabling, but it has to be backed by medical evidence. In Gentry v. Schweiker, 513 F. Supp. 1020 (D. Mont. 1981), the federal court in Great Falls affirmed the denial of benefits to a 26-year-old carpenter with chronic low-back pain. The court held that he had not made a prima facie showing of a severe impairment, because the credible medical evidence was “notably lacking” and most of his doctors cleared him to return to carpentry with limits.

Key Takeaways

• The court reviews only whether the denial is supported by “substantial evidence,” meaning evidence “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate” (Gentry, 513 F. Supp. at 1020–21).
• Pain “may in and of itself be disabling,” but a finding of disability must rest on credible medical evidence (at 1023).
• The claimant must first prove a severe impairment. Only then does the burden shift to the government to show other work he can do (at 1022 & n.1).
• The test is “not employability but rather capacity”: trouble finding a job does not establish disability (at 1023, quoting Vidal v. Harris).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the court held · Our argument and how the court differed · What it meant · Laws · When it applies · How hard · FAQ

The practice Tom Boland built is the practice that handles your case today. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

At a glance

What did the court hold in Gentry v. Schweiker?

Robert Scott Gentry was a 26-year-old high-school graduate who worked mainly as a carpenter and laborer (at 1021). On February 10, 1977 he fell onto his tool belt and a crowbar and hurt his back. He returned to work and reinjured it on September 17, 1977 lifting 2x4s. He was hospitalized several times, and his doctors diagnosed chronic lumbosacral strain (at 1021).

About eight doctors examined him. All agreed there was no organic or neurological cause for the pain, though they acknowledged a “functional overlay” (at 1022). Five recommended that he return to carpentry while limiting stooping, bending, twisting and heavy lifting. No doctor unequivocally said he could not (at 1022). The ALJ found no severe impairment, and the Appeals Council agreed (at 1021–22).

Judge Hatfield affirmed. He accepted that Mr. Gentry was “no doubt” in some pain, but found little credible evidence, apart from his own testimony, that the pain significantly limited basic work functions (at 1023). A footnote noted that he had told a doctor he built his own house and worked as a ranch hand (at 1023 n.2). The court concluded he had not made a prima facie case of disability as of February 10, 1977 (at 1023).

What did Tom Boland argue, and how did the court differ?

Our position. Tom argued that the court’s earlier decision in Kahn v. Califano, 484 F. Supp. 852 (D. Mont. 1980), required reversal because the ALJ made no findings about other kinds of work Mr. Gentry could do (at 1022 n.1). He also relied on Mr. Gentry’s pain and on his unsuccessful efforts to find work because of his back (at 1023).

The court’s view. The court distinguished Kahn. The government must show other available work only after the claimant makes a prima facie case of disability, and Mr. Gentry had not (at 1022 n.1). The court agreed that pain alone can be disabling, but found the medical record did not support it here (at 1023). On employment, it held that whether a claimant “would actually be hired” is “legally irrelevant” (at 1023, quoting Vidal v. Harris, 637 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1981)).

What did Gentry mean for the law?

Gentry applied settled rules rather than making new ones. It is a clear example of the order of proof in a disability case: the claimant must first show a severe, medically supported impairment before the burden shifts. Two years later, in Hilliard v. Schweiker, 563 F. Supp. 99, 100 (D. Mont. 1983), the same court cited Gentry for that burden-shifting rule. Tom won that case.

The rules have changed since 1981. Congress later wrote into the statute that a person’s statement about pain is not, alone, conclusive evidence of disability (42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A)). The “severe impairment” step now appears in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c).

Which laws and rules apply?

• 42 U.S.C. § 405(g): federal-court review of Social Security decisions
• 42 U.S.C. § 423: definition of disability, including § 423(d)(3) (medically acceptable evidence) and § 423(d)(2)(A) (capacity, not whether you would be hired)
• 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520: the current five-step evaluation, including the severity step. Gentry applied the former § 404.1503(c).

When might Gentry apply to you?

• A young worker with a real but “unexplained” back injury. Imaging and exams that show no structural cause make a disability claim much harder.
• Doctors who clear you with restrictions. Light-duty releases can be read as evidence that you can work.
• Everyday activities in the chart. What you tell your doctors about work around the house or ranch can be used to measure your limits (at 1023 n.2).

How hard is it to win a Social Security disability appeal in federal court?

It is hard. The court does not re-decide the claim. It asks only whether the ALJ’s decision, on the record as a whole, is supported by substantial evidence (at 1021). The claimant carries “a continuing burden” of proving a severe impairment by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” (at 1022, quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)). Gentry shows how the medical record usually decides these cases.

The Boland Aarab Way

Thomas E. Boland represented Mr. Gentry. Tom began practicing in Great Falls in 1979, after his 1974 admission. In 2017 his daughter, Caitlin Boland Aarab, and Samir F. Aarab founded Boland Aarab PLLP as the successor to his practice. We publish losses along with wins because they show how the law works and what the evidence has to prove. The lesson of Gentry, that medical proof decides injury claims, runs through our work on serious trucking and injury cases and catastrophic injury cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can pain alone make me disabled for Social Security? Pain can be disabling in itself, but the finding must rest on credible medical evidence (Gentry, 513 F. Supp. at 1023). Today, a person’s statement about pain is not by itself conclusive evidence (42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A)).

Does it matter that no one will hire me? No. The standard is “not employability but rather capacity” (at 1023, quoting Vidal v. Harris).

When does the government have to show other jobs I can do? Only after the claimant proves a severe impairment and makes a prima facie case of disability (at 1022 & n.1).

Work With the Practice Behind These Cases

Boland Aarab is a Great Falls trial firm built on Tom Boland’s practice. The same attorneys who brief and argue in the Montana Supreme Court handle our clients’ serious injury, trucking and wrongful-death cases from the first call. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

About Boland Aarab PLLP: Boland Aarab PLLP is a Great Falls, Montana trial firm. Its attorneys, Caitlin Boland Aarab and Samir F. Aarab, have appeared in more than 40 matters before the Montana Supreme Court and have argued twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The firm carries on the Great Falls practice Thomas E. Boland began in 1974. Meet our attorneys.

Sources:

• Gentry v. Schweiker, 513 F. Supp. 1020 (D. Mont. 1981) (PDF)
• Hilliard v. Schweiker, 563 F. Supp. 99 (D. Mont. 1983) (PDF)
• 42 U.S.C. § 405
• 42 U.S.C. § 423
• 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.