Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01502/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01502-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, 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. 04-1502

___________

Alice M. McKa, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2005

Filed: February 8, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alice M. McKa appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. In her February 1998

applications and related documents, McKa alleged disability since February 1996--

later revised to August 31, 1996--from heart problems, a brain aneurysm, and

radiating back pain. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined

Appellate Case: 04-1502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Entry ID: 1864781 
2

It is unclear why the ALJ found a severe brain aneurysm and heart disease, as

McKa’s medical records indicate that an arteriogram ruled out an aneurysm and that

cardiac testing revealed nothing abnormal. 

-2-

that McKa had severe chronic ischemic heart disease and a brain aneurysm,2

 but these

impairments were not of listing-level severity alone or combined; that McKa had the

residual functional capacity (RFC) to lift up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds

frequently, and to sit, stand, or walk six hours in an eight-hour workday; and that

McKa could perform her past relevant work as a dishwasher, furniture cleaner, and

food preparer as she had described these jobs, i.e., at the light level. Having carefully

reviewed the record, see Mittlestedt v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 847, 850-51 (8th Cir. 2000)

(standard of review), we affirm. 

McKa indirectly challenges the ALJ’s decision to find her back and leg

problems severe. While McKa underwent surgery in October 1998 for a large

bulging lumbosacral disc and thereafter reported pain and limitations to her primary

care physician, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (2004) (to be severe,

impairment must significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work

activities), she bore the burden of establishing that her back and leg problems were

severe despite surgery, see Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1996),

and the ALJ thoroughly discussed the medical evidence concerning McKa’s back.

The record shows that the surgeon opined McKa could work after her 1998 back

surgery, and that McKa’s primary care physician did not disagree. Also, McKa’s

primary care physician did not find it necessary to conduct further tests, and his

examination findings were relatively mild. See Mittlestedt, 204 F.3d at 850-51

(reviewing court may not reverse merely because substantial evidence would also

support opposite decision). 

We reject McKa’s challenge to the ALJ’s credibility findings, as those findings

were based on multiple valid reasons. See Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th

Appellate Case: 04-1502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Entry ID: 1864781 
-3-

Cir. 2001) (deference to ALJ is appropriate when he explicitly discredits claimant and

gives good reasons for doing so). We also reject McKa’s challenge to the ALJ’s RFC

determination, because as previously noted McKa’s surgeon opined that McKa could

return to work after her 1998 back surgery and no other physician imposed

restrictions on McKa’s ability to work; McKa failed to offer any further opinions or

records from her surgeon or her primary care doctor, see Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d

484, 488 (8th Cir. 1995) (claimant’s counsel’s failure to obtain records suggests they

had only minor importance); and the ALJ’s RFC findings were consistent with those

of a Social Security Administration reviewing physician made after the surgery, see

Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ is responsible for

determining RFC based on observations of treating physicians and others, and

claimant’s own description of her limitations). 

McKa’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we

affirm. 

_______________

Appellate Case: 04-1502 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2005 Entry ID: 1864781