Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01638/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01638-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1638

___________

Shirley T. Lemay, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2006

Filed: May 18, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Lemay appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits. In her September 1997 application, Lemay alleged

disability due to a work-related back injury sustained on September 26, 1996. Her

insured status expired on September 30, 1997.

Appellate Case: 05-1638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2006 Entry ID: 2046203
-2-

After a December 2002 hearing at which Lemay’s medical records were

admitted and she testified, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that, during

the relevant time period, Lemay did not perform substantial gainful work; her chronic

back pain was severe, but not of listing-level severity; her allegations of disabling pain

were not fully credible; and, although she could not perform her past relevant work,

she had the residual functional capacity to perform light-work jobs existing in

significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ thus concluded that Lemay

was not disabled during the relevant time period. 

We will affirm the ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on

the record as a whole. See Clark v. Shalala, 28 F.3d 828, 830 (8th Cir. 1994). Upon

careful review of the record, we conclude that, contrary to Lemay’s numerous

arguments, the ALJ had no duty to develop the record further; the ALJ’s findings

sufficiently supported the decision to deny benefits; and substantial evidence on the

record as a whole supported the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination and final

conclusion that Lemay was not disabled during the relevant time period.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2006 Entry ID: 2046203