Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01076/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01076-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, 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. 04-1076

___________

Peggy J. Guziewicz, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 28, 2004

Filed: November 5, 2004

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Peggy Guziewicz appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm.

Guziewicz challenges the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) residual function

capacity (RFC) determination, which included a restriction that Guziewicz work in

Appellate Case: 04-1076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2004 Entry ID: 1830815 
-2-

an environment free of strong chemical odors, scents, and fumes, but did not adopt

the lengthy list of additional environmental limitations proposed in a March 2002

letter from Dr. Harold Hedges, her treating physician. We reject this challenge. Dr.

Hedges’s March 2002 opinion is not supported by diagnostic testing; rather, his

opinion seems to be based on Guziewicz’s reported reactions of headache and fatigue,

which are somewhat inconsistent with Dr. Hedges’s November 2000 and December

2001 statements that Guziewicz reported she had been eating out, was active, and

exercised frequently. See Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 589 (8th Cir. 1998)

(treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to substantial weight, but it is not

conclusive and must be supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic

data). 

Further, allergy tests from December 2000 and January 2001 revealed

Guziewicz had allergies only to house dust, molds, and some foods. Dr. Robert

Kennedy, who performed the allergy tests, stated in March 2001 that Guziewicz could

build up adequate protection to her allergies with treatment. Guziewicz herself

reported to her physicians in September 1995 and June 1997 that her sensitivities to

cat and dust mite, cologne, and other strong scents were controlled by her chemical

drops. Thus, we find that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial

evidence. See Cox v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 2003) (substantialevidence standard of review); Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir.

2001) (ALJ must determine RFC based on all relevant evidence, including

observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s description of her

limitations); cf. Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995) (if impairment can

be controlled by treatment or medication, it is not disabling).

Guziewicz also argues the ALJ improperly discounted her subjective

complaints. This argument fails as well. The ALJ relied on several relevant factors

to discount her complaints, including her reported daily activities: cleaning her house

with gloves and a mask, sitting outside on her patio, and going out to eat and to the

Appellate Case: 04-1076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2004 Entry ID: 1830815 
-3-

lake with her husband. The ALJ also relied on evidence that Guziewicz's

impairments could be controlled with treatment, and that she had been noncompliant

with prescribed medical treatment, including advice to quit smoking. See Holley v.

Massanari, 253 F.3d 1088, 1092 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may consider noncompliance

with medical treatment in discrediting subjective complaints); Lowe v. Apfel, 226

F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported, credibility

findings are for ALJ to make); Wheeler v. Apfel, 224 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2000)

(ALJ properly considered claimant’s failure to follow doctor’s advice to stop smoking

in discrediting her subjective complaints); Wilson v. Chater, 76 F.3d 238, 241 (8th

Cir. 1996) (daily activities is factor to consider in evaluating subjective complaints);

Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) (relevant considerations

include effectiveness of prescribed medication).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1076 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2004 Entry ID: 1830815