Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03155/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03155-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

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

Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3155

___________

Leah Cook, *

*

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Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]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 4, 2004

 Filed: June 28, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leah Cook appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income and widow’s insurance benefits. Having carefully

reviewed the record, see Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001)

(standard of review), we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 03-3155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781709 
-2-

In her November 1993 applications and related documents, Cook alleged

disability since November 1984 from kidney and respiratory problems, depression,

headaches, dizziness, and pain in her lower extremities, chest, hips, and abdomen.

Hearings were held in 1995, 1998, and 1999, and after the final hearing, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Cook had severe non-insulindependent diabetes, degenerative joint disease, reactive airway disease,

gastroesophageal reflux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and obesity, but her

impairments, alone or combined, were not of listing-level severity. The ALJ further

determined that Cook could not perform her past relevant work and she had no

transferrable skills, but her recent education provided direct entry into certain skilled

jobs a vocational expert had identified in response to a hypothetical the ALJ had

posed. 

Cook claims that the ALJ did not consider her impairments in combination, or

discuss certain of her diagnoses. We disagree. Before reaching his conclusions, the

ALJ summarized the medical evidence, including evidence regarding most of the

conditions Cook claims he ignored; and as to the diagnoses Cook specifically

references, she sought little treatment for some of them and others were controlled or

only suspected. See Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ is not

required to discuss all evidence, and failure to cite specific evidence does not mean

it was not considered); Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994) (conclusory

statement that ALJ did not consider combined effects of impairments was unfounded

where ALJ noted each impairment and found that impairments, alone or combined,

were not of listing-level severity).

Cook contends the hypothetical should have included references to

fibromyalgia, severe headaches, and emotional limitations. We also reject this

argument. The ALJ properly excluded restrictions related to fibromyalgia and

headaches, as a rheumatologist merely suspected fibromyalgia and Cook only

periodically sought care for headaches. The ALJ also properly excluded emotional

Appellate Case: 03-3155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781709 
-3-

limitations from the hypothetical, because Cook sought no mental health treatment,

a consulting psychologist diagnosed only a pain disorder (from psychological factors

and a general medical condition) and a dependent-personality disorder, and the

consultant’s examination and testing revealed no significant mental limitations. Thus,

the hypothetical--which, contrary to Cook’s assertion on appeal, described a claimant

who was capable of less than a full range of sedentary work--adequately covered

Cook’s restrictions. See Hunt v. Massanari, 250 F.3d 622, 625 (8th Cir. 2001)

(hypothetical is sufficient if it sets forth impairments supported by substantial

evidence and accepted as true by ALJ). 

Cook’s remaining arguments, one of which is presented for the first time on

appeal, see Misner v. Chater, 79 F.3d 745, 746 (8th Cir. 1996) (arguments raised for

first time on appeal will not be considered unless manifest injustice would otherwise

result), provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3155 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781709