Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01055/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Christina Clement
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western 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. 05-1055

___________

Christina Clement, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

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

of the Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2006

Filed: June 26, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christina Clement appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In her November

2001 application, Clement alleged disability due to arthritis in her hip, degenerative

bone deterioration in her hips and left leg, diabetes, and asthma. After a hearing, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Clement’s impairments of mild

Appellate Case: 05-1055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060643
-2-

osteoarthritis of her left hip, mild degenerative disc disease, asthma, and diabetes--

exacerbated by her obesity--were severe in combination but did not equal a listed

impairment; (2) she was not significantly limited by migraine headaches, vision

difficulties, carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, or anxiety; (3) her allegations of

disabling pain were not entirely credible; (4) she had the residual functional capacity

(RFC) to perform a wide range of light work; and (5) she could perform her past

relevant work as a sewing-machine operator, production operator, fast-food worker,

cosmetics assembler and sorter, and housekeeper. After the Appeals Council denied

review, the district court affirmed.

We reject Clement’s contention that the ALJ wrongly discredited the opinion

of Dr. Vann Smith, a neuropsychologist who saw Clement one time based on her

attorney’s recommendation, and completed a mental RFC questionnaire wherein he

assessed Clement as unable to pursue gainful employment. We conclude the ALJ

properly discounted the RFC assessment in Dr. Smith’s report after finding it was not

supported by his own testing and evaluation, or by other medical evidence in the

record, and was inconsistent with Clement’s reported daily activities. See Ellis v.

Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2005) (although medical source opinions are

considered in assessing RFC, final RFC determination is for Commissioner); Banks

v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ properly discounted

claimant’s complaints of disabling depression as inconsistent with daily activities and

failure to seek additional psychiatric treatment); cf. Smith v. Shalala, 987 F.2d 1371,

1375 (8th Cir. 1993) (discrediting report of one-time physician who found disabling

mental impairments where mental impairment was not alleged in application, claimant

neither previously sought nor was referred for mental health treatment, and treating

doctor noted only occasional periods of anxiety).

We also conclude the ALJ properly found that Clement was not significantly

limited by migraine headaches, vision difficulties, or carpal tunnel syndrome, as she

sought little or no medical treatment for these complaints. See 20 C.F.R.

Appellate Case: 05-1055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060643
-3-

§§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (severe impairment significantly limits physical or mental

ability to do basic work activities); Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.

1997) (failure to seek medical assistance contradicts subjective complaints). The ALJ

properly stated that he was considering Clement’s severe impairments as exacerbated

by her obesity. We further find the hypothetical to the VE that was adopted by the

ALJ, which was more restrictive than the consulting doctor’s RFC assessment,

included all of the impairments substantiated by the record. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240

F.3d 1145, 1148 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ may exclude alleged impairments he has

properly rejected as untrue or unsubstantiated).

Clement’s remaining arguments are also without merit. Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1055 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/26/2006 Entry ID: 2060643