Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03962/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03962-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Amanda A. Lee
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable H. David Young, 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. 03-3962

___________

Amanda A. Lee, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

the Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2004

 Filed: October 27, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Amanda A. Lee appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In her August 1998

applications, Lee alleged disability since mid-August 1998 from a learning disability.

At the November 1999 hearing, she amended her alleged onset date to November

1997. After the hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Lee had

Appellate Case: 03-3962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2004 Entry ID: 1826693 
-2-

severe borderline intellectual functioning, but that this impairment did not meet or

equal a listing; and that Lee had the residual functional capacity to perform unskilled

work at any exertional level if it involved only simple, concrete instructions. The

ALJ also found that, given a vocational expert’s (VE’s) testimony--in response to a

hypothetical the ALJ had posed--about Lee’s ability to perform her past relevant work

as a teacher’s aide and to perform machine-operating and small-parts assembly jobs,

Lee was not disabled. See Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 468 (8th Cir. 2000)

(standard of review).

We reject Lee’s challenges to the ALJ’s credibility findings, because the ALJ

gave multiple valid reasons for finding the testimony of Lee and her mother 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 credibility findings); Tate v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 1191, 1198 n.8 (8th

Cir. 1999) (ALJ properly discounted lay witness testimony as based on incentive to

see claimant obtain benefits and uncritical acceptance of claimant’s complaints).

Lee argues that the ALJ ignored evidence showing her borderline intelligence

was disabling, and ignored the VE’s testimony that Lee was not employable. We

disagree. The ALJ discussed the only psychological evidence in the record regarding

intellectual functioning, and there was no indication at the hearing that other records

existed which would have supported her claim. Cf. Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006,

1013 (8th Cir. 2000) (court was not persuaded that ALJ failed to develop record

adequately, as record contained ample evidence regarding mental impairment and its

functional impact). While at one point the VE opined that Lee was not employable,

he did so only in response to a hypothetical based on a counselor’s 1987 vocational

limitations; and significantly, after 1987 Lee was able to hold jobs in home health

(over 5 years) and in a nursing home (1-1/2 years)--jobs which she left for reasons

unrelated to her impairment. See Roberts, 222 F.3d at 469 (substantial evidence

supported ALJ’s decision, where he relied in part on fact that claimant with

Appellate Case: 03-3962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2004 Entry ID: 1826693 
-3-

borderline intelligence had successfully worked many years with same cognitive

abilities he currently possessed).

Lee’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3962 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2004 Entry ID: 1826693