Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03428/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Ted Delka
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3428

___________

Ted Delka, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2004 

Filed: June 17, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ted Delka appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the decision of the

Social Security Commissioner to deny his application for disability insurance

benefits. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 03-3428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2004 Entry ID: 1778151 
-2-

Delka, born in 1961, alleged he became disabled in August 2000 when he fell

and injured his right knee. After his fall and his subsequent surgery, he developed

deep vein thrombosis in his right leg, a condition that caused severe pain and

swelling. He also experienced dizziness, fainting spells, ringing in his ears,

headaches, and difficulty sleeping. After a hearing, an administrative law judge

(ALJ) found that Delka’s impairments were severe, but not of listing level, that he

had performed no substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date, and that he

could not return to his past work as a truck driver. Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded

Delka was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act because he was

capable of performing a significant range of sedentary work. Specifically, as

supported by the vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ found Delka could perform

sedentary jobs such as dispatcher, night auditor, and surveillance systems monitor.

Following careful review, we conclude the Commissioner’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). Although the record does not

directly support Delka’s contention that two physicians advised him to elevate his leg

to a specific height, to the extent there were conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ

was entitled to resolve them. See Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1219 (8th

Cir. 2001). We also conclude that the ALJ, who found Delka needed to elevate his

leg approximately half the time to relieve pain and swelling, did not err in finding not

fully credible Delka’s claimed need to elevate his leg above his heart. See Hogan v.

Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 961-62 (8th Cir. 2001) (often, ALJ must determine severity

rather than existence of claimant’s pain); Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir.

2000) (if explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to make).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2004 Entry ID: 1778151