Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03155/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03155-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., 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. 04-3155

___________

Wanda J. Strickland, *

*

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Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]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: August 5, 2005

Filed: August 9, 2005

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wanda Strickland, who alleged she had been disabled since March 1999 from

asthma, emphysema, and back pain related to her lungs, appeals the district court’s1

order upholding the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For reversal, Strickland argues

Appellate Case: 04-3155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2005 Entry ID: 1937895
-2-

the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly consider the effect of her obesity

on her residual functional capacity (RFC). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Following a December 2002 hearing, the ALJ found that Strickland, who was

born in January 1965, suffered from chronic obstructive asthma, gastroesophageal

reflux disease, morbid obesity, allergic rhinitis, situational depression, and

obstructive sleep apnea, but her impairments alone or combined were not of listinglevel severity; that it was reasonable to assume Strickland’s obesity caused some

limitation of motion in bending, stooping, and lifting; that these limitations would be

considered in evaluating her RFC; that she failed to follow her doctors’ repeated

admonitions to quit smoking; that her subjective allegations were not entirely

credible; and that her RFC did not prevent her from performing either her past

relevant work as a cashier, or a wide range of light jobs, as confirmed by the

vocational expert’s testimony. 

We conclude the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See

Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). In

particular, when Strickland applied for benefits and when she testified at the hearing,

she focused on her asthma, emphysema, and continuous coughing as the conditions

that prevented her from working. Nevertheless, she continued to smoke a pack or two

of cigarettes daily, despite being advised by her doctors to quit, and the ALJ properly

considered this in discounting her subjective allegations. See Wheeler v. Apfel, 224

F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2000); Kisling v. Chater, 105 F.3d 1255, 1257 (8th Cir. 1997).

In addition, none of Strickland’s physicians imposed any work-related limitations

related to her obesity. See Forte v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir. 2004);

Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir. 2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ

must consider medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and

claimant’s description of her limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2005 Entry ID: 1937895