Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01830/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01830-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Earl Calvin Paschal
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western 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. 09-1830

___________

Earl Calvin Paschal, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas.

Michael J. Astrue, *

Commissioner, Social * [UNPUBLISHED]

Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 9, 2010

Filed: April 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Earl Calvin Paschal appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his application for

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Paschal alleged that

he had been disabled since July 18, 2004, due to an earlier back injury. After a

Appellate Case: 09-1830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657784
-2-

hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Paschal’s impairment was

severe but did not equal a listed impairment; his subjective allegations were not fully

credible; he had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work with

stooping and crouching restrictions; and he could perform his past relevant work of

dishwasher and janitor. We reject Paschal’s arguments for reversal as follows.

Paschal argues that the ALJ improperly disregarded the opinions of Dr. Thomas

Hart and Dr. Eric Akin, and instead relied on the opinions of Dr. D. Bud Dickson and

Dr. Scott Schlesinger, to whom Paschal was referred by his employer’s workers’

compensation insurance carrier; thus, he argues, the ALJ should have awarded at least

a closed period of disability from July 18, 2004, until June 21, 2006, when he was

released to medium work by Dr. Akin. Paschal does not offer any medical opinion

that he continued to be disabled after June 21. As to the argument for a closed period

of disability, we note that Dr. Dickson gave Paschal a complete release to work in

June 2003, and we find no error in the ALJ’s reliance on that opinion in finding that

Paschal could work in July 2004. Between July 2004 and Paschal’s February 2006

back surgery, the only opinion in the record indicating that he was unable to work was

a September 2005 letter from Dr. Akin, in response to an inquiry from Paschal’s

attorney, indicating that it was reasonable and necessary for Paschal to have remained

off work for the evaluation and treatment of his back pain. This opinion, however, did

not specify a time frame, and Dr. Akin’s treatment records did not include work

restrictions. See Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2005) (medical

source opinion that applicant is disabled or unable to work involves issue reserved to

Commissioner and is not type of opinion to which controlling weight should be

given); Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir. 2001) (treating

physician’s vague and conclusory opinion is not entitled to deference). While Paschal

undoubtedly could not work for some period of time following his February back

surgery, Dr. Akin had released him to work by June 21. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)

(impairment must last for continuous period of not less than 12 months). 

Appellate Case: 09-1830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657784
-3-

We hold that the ALJ’s credibility finding is supported by consideration of

Paschal’s medical records, daily activities, inconsistent testimony, and application for

unemployment insurance benefits, and by evidence that he had given an unreliable

effort during an evaluation of his functional capacity. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d

969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported, credibility findings

are for ALJ to make). Finally, Paschal did not establish that he met the requirements

for a listed impairment. See Gonzales v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2006)

(claimant bears burden of establishing that impairment meets or equals listed

impairment).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1830 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657784