Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01081/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01081-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Michael J. Astrue has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social

Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2).

2

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1081

___________

LELAND L. THOMPSON, * 

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE1

, *

Commissioner, Social Security *

Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Filed: February 28, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Leland L. Thompson, appeals the district court’s2

 judgment

affirming the decision of the Social Security Commissioner denying his application

for benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910
-2-

I.

Thompson applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on June 18, 2002, alleging

an onset date of January 4, 2002. On April 14, 2002, the administrative law judge

(“ALJ”) issued the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (“Commissioner”). Thompson appealed the denial of benefits to the

district court. The district court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner. From that

decision, Thompson appeals.

II.

At the time of the ALJ’s decision, Thompson was 39 years old and had a high

school education. He had past relevant work as a carpenter, cable assembler, welder,

warehouse worker and landscaper. Thompson alleged disability due to seizure

disorder and degenerative joint disease of his left knee. At steps one and two of the

sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Thompson performed no substantial gainful

activity after his alleged onset date and that his impairments were severe. At the third

step, the ALJ determined that his impairments did not meet or equal any listed

impairment. At step four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ determined that he had

the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work, thus he

could not perform his past relevant work. At step five of the sequential analysis, the

ALJ determined Thompson was not disabled based on the medical-vocational

guidelines, because there are other jobs available in substantial numbers in the

national economy, which Thompson could perform based on his age, education and

residual functional capacity. The district court agreed and affirmed the

Commissioner’s final decision.

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910
-3-

III.

On appeal, Thompson argues that the ALJ erred by: 1) finding claimant’s

credibility was not supported by substantial evidence; 2) failing to provide a

consultative mental evaluation; 3) failing to obtain vocational expert testimony; 4)

failing to give appropriate weight to claimant’s subjective complaints; 5) failing to

consider or properly discount the opinion of his treating physician; and, 6) failing to

evaluate the combined effect of all of his impairments. 

IV.

We reject Thompson’s challenge to the ALJ’s credibility determination,

because the determination was based on valid reasons. See Gregg v. Barnhart, 354

F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (“If an ALJ explicitly discredits the claimant’s

testimony and gives good reason for doing so, we will normally defer to the ALJ’s

credibility determination.”) Testimony provided at the administrative hearing differed

significantly from Thompson’s reports to physicians on important issues such as the

frequency and extent of his seizure activity. He reported to physicians that he was

responding to seizure medications, yet he and his wife testified that his seizures

continued almost daily, despite the medications. Likewise, his treating neurologist,

Dr. Clara Applegate, noted that he and his wife “seem to have a lot of investment in

his illness and his symptoms.” At the administrative hearing, it was alleged that his

seizures involve biting his tongue, but the medical notes specifically note that he did

not report biting his tongue during his seizures. Based on the inconsistencies in the

record, we defer to the ALJ’s credibility determination.

We are not persuaded by Thompson’s argument that the ALJ erred in failing to

provide a consultative mental evaluation. It is well settled that the ALJ’s duty to fully

and fairly develop the record includes the responsibility of ensuring that the record

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910
-4-

includes evidence addressing the alleged impairments at issue from either a treating

or examining physician. Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding

that it was improper for an ALJ to rely on the opinions of reviewing physicians alone).

In this case, there is substantial evidence in the record from physicians who examined

and treated Thompson. While Thompson alleged depression at his administrative

hearing, he did not claim depression as a disabling impairment in his application.

Further, Thompson failed to allege that he was unable to work due to depression. It

is noteworthy that Thompson’s treating neurologist, Dr. Applegate, was aware of his

alleged depression, but did not consider his depression to be an immediate concern

and did not prescribe any anti-depressant medications. Likewise, the record, which

includes treatment notes from Dr. Applegate and normal EEG test results, contains

sufficient evidence with respect to Thompson’s allegations of seizure disorder.

Despite the frequency of seizure activity alleged at the administrative hearing, the

medical evidence establishes that Thompson reported to physicians that he

experienced decreased seizure activity with the use of medications. On one occasion,

Dr. Applegate noted that, although Thompson reported break-through seizure activity

while on Zonegran and Dilantin, such break-through seizure activity was very unusual

with the daily dosage of his prescribed medications. On the same date, Dr. Applegate

observed that Thompson and his wife were heavily invested in his illness and

symptoms. In light of Dr. Applegate’s treatment records, the absence of a consultative

mental evaluation does not undermine the ALJ’s decision and findings with respect

to Thompson’s application for disability. Accordingly, we conclude that the record

does not support the assertion that the ALJ erred by failing to obtain a consultative

evaluation.

Nor can we agree with Thompson’s assertion that the ALJ erred in failing to

obtain the testimony of a vocational expert. Thompson argues that the ALJ erred in

relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at step five of the sequential analysis

due to his alleged nonexertional impairments of obesity and pain. Although

Thompson’s obesity was noted by the ALJ, Thompson did not allege that his obesity

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910
-5-

was a disabling impairment. Thompson’s weight fluctuated from the time of his knee

surgery until the time of the hearing. When he was following the prescribed exercise

regimen and going to physical therapy, he lost a significant number of pounds. He

reported a weight loss of 70 pounds a year after his knee surgery. At the time of

hearing, he reported that he weighed 320 pounds and was 5’8” tall. However, he did

not allege that his weight interfered with his ability to work. 

Although Thompson alleged that his pain interfered with his ability to work, the

ALJ conducted the proper analysis with respect to his nonexertional impairments and

concluded that his pain would not interfere with his ability to perform the full range

of sedentary work. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1321-22 (8th Cir. 1984)

(subsequent history omitted). While the ALJ recognized that Thompson’s postural

limitations of climbing, balancing, crouching, crawling or kneeling existed, he found

that those nonexertional limitations did not significantly erode Thompson’s sedentary

occupational base. Because Thompson suffered from exertional and nonexertional

impairments and the exertional impairments alone did not warrant a finding of

disability, the ALJ properly considered the extent his nonexertional impairments

diminish his work capacity. See Thompson v. Bowen, 850 F.2d 346, 349 (8th

Cir.1988). If Thompson’s characteristics do not differ significantly from those

contemplated in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, the ALJ may rely on the

Guidelines alone to direct a finding of disabled or not disabled. See id. “[A]n ALJ

may use the Guidelines even though there is a nonexertional impairment if the ALJ

finds, and the record supports the finding, that the nonexertional impairment does not

diminish the claimant’s residual functional capacity to perform the full range of

activities listed in the Guidelines.” Lucy v. Chater, 113 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Thompson, 850 F.2d at 349-50.) Here, the ALJ’s finding that Thompson’s

nonexertional impairments did not limit his occupational base for sedentary work is

supported. Sedentary work not only accommodates Thompson’s allegations of pain,

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910
-6-

said work also accommodates his obesity and postural limitations because it involves

minimal standing and lifting and may be performed primarily from a seated position.

Therefore, the ALJ did not err in relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines.

We also reject Thompson’s argument with respect to the opinion of his treating

physician. While an ALJ’s failure to consider or discuss a treating physician’s

opinion that a claimant is disabled is error when the record contains no contradictory

medical opinion, Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998), an ALJ may

discount or disregard such an opinion if other medical assessments are supported by

superior medical evidence, or if the treating physician has offered inconsistent

opinions. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2000). A treating

physician’s opinion is due “controlling weight” if that opinion is “‘well-supported by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not

inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’” Id. at 1012-13

(quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) 2000). “Although a treating physician's opinion

is entitled to great weight, it does not automatically control or obviate the need to

evaluate the record as whole.” Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2001).

Thompson relies on Dr. James Bryan’s single page work status report dated

January 21, 2003. Said report contains a series of typed classifications of work

restriction options for the physician to circle. Dr. Bryan circled “Class V”. Class V

is defined as “Severe limitations - incapable of secretarial activities. NO work at this

time.” However, Dr. Bryan did not explain why he circled the particular

classification, and this is inconsistent with all of Dr. Bryan’s previous indications as

to the level of restriction he placed on Thompson. On January 13, 2003, Dr. Bryan

indicated that Thompson’s limitation was a “Class IV” indicating he was “capable of

clerical, sedentary type activities” with “NO lifting greater than 10 pounds” and “NO

bending, stooping or twisting.” The record contains no treatment notes from Dr.

Bryan after the year 2001, yet he indicated that Thompson could not work in 2003.

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910
-7-

There is no evidence of treatment to correspond with the opinion. Therefore, there is

no evidence of record to explain why Dr. Bryan suddenly reversed his opinion without

explanation. Such an unsupported physician opinion is not controlling on the ALJ.

Finally, Thompson’s assertion that the ALJ failed to consider his alleged

impairments in the combination is not supported by the record. The ALJ discussed

Thompson’s impairments individually and specifically found that his “medically

determinable impairments (individually or in combination)” do not meet or medically

equal the listed impairments. Such analysis is sufficient. Browning v. Sullivan, 958

F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1992). 

V.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

 

Appellate Case: 06-1081 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282910