Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01069/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01069-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frances Ball
Appellant
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mary

Anne L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1069

___________

Frances Ball, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 23, 2007

Filed: January 30, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frances Ball appeals the district court’s1

 decision affirming the Social Security

Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. She disputes the determinations made by the Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) that, during the relevant time period, her physical abnormalities would have had

Appellate Case: 06-1069 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2007 Entry ID: 3272697
-2-

no more than a minimal effect on her ability to work, and thus she did not have a

severe impairment or combination of impairments.

We will affirm the Commissioner’s decision if supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole, taking into account both supporting evidence and

evidence that detracts from the decision. See Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 604-05

(8th Cir. 2003) (sequential disability analysis can be discontinued upon determination

that impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than minimal

effect on claimant’s ability to work; issue on appeal is whether, in light of supporting

and detracting evidence, there was substantial evidence on record as whole to support

that determination); Simmons v. Massanari, 264 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir. 2001)

(substantial evidence is “less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind

might accept it as adequate to support a decision” (citing Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203,

1206-07 (8th Cir. 1998))).

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ properly

discounted the assessment made by Ball’s treating physician, indicating that Ball

could not perform even sedentary work. As the ALJ observed, the treating physician’s

assessment was inconsistent with Ball’s medical record, including the physician’s own

treatment notes. Moreover, neither a consulting physician’s report nor Ball’s own

hearing testimony adequately supported the treating physician’s disability

determination. See Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir. 1989) (while

treating physicians’ medical reports are ordinarily entitled to greater weight than

consulting physicians’ opinions, they do not conclusively determine disability status

and “must be supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data” (citation

omitted)). We further conclude that the ALJ’s decision substantively and adequately

covered the relevant considerations under Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322

(8th Cir. 1984), and that the ALJ’s determination of Ball’s limited credibility was

supported by the record as a whole--particularly by the lack of significant medical

diagnoses or treatment and by Ball’s own description of her activities. See Lowe v.

Appellate Case: 06-1069 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2007 Entry ID: 3272697
-3-

Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ was not required to discuss

methodically each Polaski consideration, so long as considerations were

acknowledged and examined before claimant’s subjective complaints were

discounted; upholding ALJ’s credibility determination as adequately explained and

supported by record as whole).

Accordingly, the district court’s decision is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1069 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/30/2007 Entry ID: 3272697