Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01697/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01697-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Loretta J. Roland
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, 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. 04-1697

___________

Loretta J. Roland, *

*

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Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]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: November 5, 2004

Filed: November 10, 2004 

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Loretta Roland appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the Social

Security Commissioner’s denial of her applications for benefits. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-1697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832538 
-2-

Roland underwent surgery for a herniated disk in April 2000. She later sought

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming she could

no longer work, primarily because of residual back and left-leg pain. Following a

hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Roland--who was 45 years old

on her alleged onset date, and had a high school education--was able to perform light

work and thus was not disabled. The ALJ relied on the Medical-Vocational

Guidelines (Grids). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 416.969, and Subpt. P, App. 2, Rule

202.14 (2004). After the Appeals Council denied Roland’s request for review, she

sought review in federal court, and the district court entered judgment in favor of the

Commissioner. 

Following careful review, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926,

928 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Specifically, the ALJ was entitled to rely

on the Grids, because the record supports the ALJ’s finding that Roland’s

nonexertional impairments do not significantly diminish her residual functional

capacity (RFC) to perform light work. See Thompson v. Bowen, 850 F.2d 346, 349-

50 (8th Cir. 1988) (if ALJ determines that claimant’s nonexertional limitations do not

affect her RFC, then ALJ may rely on Grids to direct conclusion of disabled or not

disabled without resorting to vocational expert’s testimony). In addition, the ALJ

partially discounted for legally sufficient reasons Roland’s complaints of pain. See

Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 258-59 (8th Cir. 1996) (when complaints of pain

are explicitly discredited for legally sufficient reasons, Grids may be used); Lowe v.

Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported,

credibility findings are for ALJ to make). Further, the award of disability benefits by

the insurer of Roland’s former employer, while relevant, was nonbinding on the ALJ,

and the ALJ’s failure to discuss the award is not a basis for reversal. See

Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273, 275 (8th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2004 Entry ID: 1832538