Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02610/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Jesse L. Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2610

___________

Jesse L. Thomas, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant/Appellee. *

*

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2005

Filed: March 18, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jessie L. Thomas sought supplemental security income and disability insurance

benefits, alleging he was disabled due to back and knee injuries. After a hearing, the

administrative law judge concluded that while Thomas could not return to work as

a laborer, he retained the residual functional capacity to perform light exertional

work. The Appeals Council denied further review. The district court affirmed.1

 This

court reviews whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. See

Appellate Case: 04-2610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2005 Entry ID: 1880633 
-2-

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Keller v. Shalala, 26 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 1994). Jurisdiction

being proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

First, Thomas argues that the ALJ erred in giving greater weight to the opinion

of a consulting physician, than to the conclusion of his treating physician. The

opinion of a treating physician is ordinarily entitled to greater weight than the opinion

of a consulting physician. See Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir. 1989).

However, a treating physician's opinion must be supported by credible and persuasive

evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ may reject the opinion of any

medical expert that is inconsistent with the medical record as a whole. See Estes v.

Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Here, the ALJ concluded that the treating physician's clinical findings and

opinions were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence in the record. 

Specifically, the ALJ found that the treating physician's conservative treatment was

inconsistent with Thomas's allegations of disabling pain. See Smith v. Shalala, 987

F.2d 1371, 1374 (8th Cir. 1993). Thomas emphasizes that an MRI showed some

degenerative changes and that a CT scan showed an incomplete tear in the outer ring

of a spinal disc. The consulting physician acknowledged some disk degeneration, but

stated that Thomas is capable of working. The consulting physician observed that

Thomas had normal reflexes, free range of motion in his back without pain or

restriction, and "preserved" heel-to-toe gait and walk without a limp. The ALJ gave

greater weight to the opinion of the consulting physician, a board certified

neurosurgeon with greater expertise in Thomas's type of injuries. Greater weight is

generally given to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues in the area of

specialty, than to the opinion of a non-specialist. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(5);

416.927(d)(5) (2003); 29 F.3d 428, 432 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Hinchey v. Shalala,

29 F.3d 428, 432 (8th Cir. 1993). This court finds that the ALJ's rejection of the

treating doctor's opinion and reliance on the consulting physician's opinion are

supported by substantial evidence. 

Appellate Case: 04-2610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2005 Entry ID: 1880633 
-3-

Second, Thomas alleges that the ALJ erred in discrediting his subjective

complaints of pain. The ALJ, in the best position to gauge the credibility of

testimony, is granted deference. See Estes, 275 F.3d at 724. Subjective complaints

may be discredited if inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. See Sullins v.

Shalala, 25 F.3d 601, 603 (8th Cir. 1994). The ALJ must fully consider all evidence

relating to subjective complaints , including the claimant's prior work record, and

observations by third parties and treating and examining physicians. See Polaski v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

In the instant case, the ALJ concluded that Thomas's complaints were not

supported by the objective medical evidence in the record. The ALJ found that the

lack of medical evidence supporting his allegations, the type of medications taken,

the lack of more aggressive treatment, his poor work record, and his functional

capabilities precluded a finding of disability. See Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255,

259-60 (8th Cir. 1991). The ALJ's credibility determination is supported by

substantial evidence.

Finally, Thomas contends that the ALJ failed to include all his subjective

impairments in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. Specifically,

Thomas asserts that the ALJ failed to include the following restrictions: (1) no

standing after 45 minutes; (2) no prolonged standing or sitting; (3) no repetitive

bending; (4) occasionally capable of carrying objects weighing no more than 10

pounds; and (5) consistently capable of carrying objects weighing no more than 5

pounds. "[T]estimony from a vocation expert is substantial evidence only when the

testimony is based on a correctly phrased hypothetical question that captures the

concrete consequences of a claimant's deficiencies." Taylor v. Chater, 118 F.3d

1274, 1278 (8th Cir. 1997). A hypothetical question, however, need only include

impairments that are supported by the record. See Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010,

1015 (8th Cir. 2000). 

Appellate Case: 04-2610 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2005 Entry ID: 1880633 
-4-

In this case, the hypothetical included the age, education, work record, and –

as supported by the record – the lifting, standing, walking, kneeling, and crouching

restrictions. The ALJ found that Thomas' claims of disabling impairments were not

supported by the record. Thus, the ALJ properly excluded the unsupported

impairments from the hypothetical question.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

____________________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2610 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/18/2005 Entry ID: 1880633