Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01856/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01856-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Kenneth Lacewell
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1856

___________

Kenneth Lacewell, *

*

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Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]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: December 28, 2004 

Filed: January 26, 2005 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Lacewell (Lacewell) applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB)

in July 1999, alleging disability since February 1999 from a deviated septum,

obstructive sleep apnea, recurrent sinusitis, and headaches. After a hearing, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded (1) Lacewell’s testimony as to the extent

of his symptoms and limitations was not fully credible; (2) while he had been

diagnosed with and treated for sleep apnea, myofascial back pain, headaches,

sinusitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, these impairments did not limit his

ability to perform basic work activities and thus were not severe; and (3) a Veterans

Appellate Case: 04-1856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859682 
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). 

-2-

Administration (VA) disability determination did not necessarily mean Lacewell met

the requirements for DIB. The ALJ denied benefits, the district court1

 affirmed the

final decision, and Lacewell appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record, see

Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 604-05 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

In arguing that the ALJ erred in finding his impairments not severe at step two

of the sequential evaluation process, Lacewell relies in part on his own testimony.

However, the ALJ cited multiple valid reasons for finding Lacewell not entirely

credible. See Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (if ALJ explicitly

discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, this court normally defers

to his credibility determination). In particular, we agree with the ALJ that Lacewell’s

reported daily activities; his failure to return as directed to the neurologist who had

prescribed a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine for his sleep apnea,

or to tell that doctor about purported problems with the CPAP machine; and the

relatively few complaints of headaches noted in the medical records undermine the

existence of severe impairments. See Nguyen v. Chater, 75 F.3d 429, 430-31 (8th

Cir. 1996) (noting in affirming denial of benefits at step 2 that reported daily

activities–visiting neighbors, cooking meals, doing laundry, and attending church–

were incompatible with disabling pain); cf. Johnston v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 870, 875 (8th

Cir. 2000) (noting in affirming step-two denial that, inter alia, there was no evidence

claimant had reported dizziness, agorophobia, or lightheadedness to her doctors) . 

Lacewell also challenges the step-two denial by arguing that many physicians

had noted his significant pain and discomfort. We disagree. The records from the

physicians Lacewell lists support the ALJ’s determination Lacewell’s conditions had

no more than a minimal impact on his ability to work. See Nguyen, 75 F.3d at 430-31

Appellate Case: 04-1856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859682 
-3-

(sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when impairment

or combination of impairments would have no more than minimal effect on claimant’s

ability to work; claimant bears burden of establishing severe impairment that

significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities). We also

disagree with Lacewell’s assertion the ALJ did not consider his impairments in

combination, given the ALJ’s thorough discussion of the medical evidence and

Lacewell’s testimony, and the ALJ’s enumerated findings. 

Citing Morrison v. Apfel, 146 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1998), Lacewell appears to

argue the VA disability finding precluded a step-two denial. This argument also fails.

Here, in contrast to the facts in Morrison, cf. id. at 628, the VA disability findings

were not accompanied by extensive medical findings, and the ALJ specifically

discussed the VA ratings. Further, the VA was apparently persuaded Lacewell was

unemployable because the VA believed Lacewell had been terminated, but Lacewell

testified before the ALJ that he had retired due to a merger, declining his employer’s

offer to transfer him to a job with more responsibility; and the VA’s final letter

indicated Lacewell’s actual disability rating was 50%, although he had been found

100% “unemployable.” Cf. Fisher v. Shalala, 41 F.3d 1261, 1262 (8th Cir. 1994) (per

curiam) (finding no support for contention that claimant’s sixty percent serviceconnected disability rating equated with inability to engage in substantial gainful

activity under social security standards). 

Finally, we reject Lacewell’s contention the ALJ should have sent him for a

consultative examination. While an ALJ is required to develop the record fully and

fairly even when a claimant has an attorney, see Freeman v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 687, 692

(8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ only must order consultative examination when it is necessary

for an informed decision), the record before the ALJ contained treating physicians’

assessments of Lacewell’s sinus problems, headaches, sleep apnea, and deviated

septum, and thus a consultative examination was not required, see Strongson v.

Barnhart, 361 F.3d 1066, 1071-72 (8th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must develop record fully and

Appellate Case: 04-1856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859682 
-4-

fairly to ensure it includes evidence from treating physician, or at least examining

physician, addressing impairments at issue).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1856 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859682