Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03613/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03613-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
James Bogard
Appellant
Mary Bogard
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., 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).

2

Mary Bogard was substituted as the appellant for James Bogard, who died after

this appeal was filed.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3613

___________

Mary Bogard, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 19, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mary Bogard appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income to her husband, James Bogard.2

In Bogard’s February 2000 application, he alleged disability since July 1998 due to

Appellate Case: 04-3613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2005 Entry ID: 1987227
-2-

back and chest pain, and coronary artery disease. After a hearing, an administrative

law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Bogard’s impairments were severe in

combination but did not equal a listed impairment; (2) his allegations of disability

were not entirely credible; (3) he could not perform his past relevant work as a farmer

or truck driver; (4) he had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform the full

range of light work, and he was classified as a “younger individual” with “limited

education”; and thus (5) the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Grids) directed a finding

of “not disabled.” After the Appeals Council denied review, the district court

affirmed.

We conclude that the ALJ’s credibility findings are entitled to deference. See

Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801-03 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court defers to

ALJ’s credibility determination so long as it is supported by good reasons and

substantial evidence; credibility determination was supported where ALJ relied in part

on physician’s note suggesting claimant magnified his symptoms). We also reject

Bogard’s contention that the ALJ wrongly discredited the opinion of his treating

physician, Dr. Vonda Houchin. Dr. Houchin wrote a letter in September 1999 stating

that Bogard was being treated for low-back pain and right-leg paresthesia and was

unable to work at that time. This letter does not control the disability determination:

Dr. Houchin did not state that Bogard was permanently unable to work, and there is

no indication that she considered Bogard’s RFC or his ability to perform jobs other

than his prior work. See Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2005)

(although medical source opinions are considered in assessing RFC, final RFC

determination is for Commissioner).

Bogard’s argument that the ALJ’s reliance on the Grids was improper also fails.

While Bogard is correct that pain is a nonexertional impairment, see Beckley v. Apfel,

152 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir. 1998), the ALJ found that the pain did not diminish

Bogard’s ability to perform the full range of light activities and, thus, reliance on the

Grids was proper, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567 & 416.967 (light work requirements);

Appellate Case: 04-3613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2005 Entry ID: 1987227
-3-

McGeorge v. Barnhart, 321 F.3d 766, 768-69 (8th Cir. 2003) (ALJ may use Grids if

record supports ALJ’s finding that nonexertional impairment does not diminish

claimant’s RFC to perform full range of activities). Moreover, the ALJ properly

found that, based on Bogard’s characteristics, the Grids directed a finding of “not

disabled.” See 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.17.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3613 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/19/2005 Entry ID: 1987227