Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03366/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03366-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Johnny J. Pense
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, 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. 04-3366

___________

Johnny J. Pense, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2005

Filed: August 10, 2005 

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Johnny J. Pense appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the termination of

disability insurance benefits. Pense applied for benefits in August 1992, and in May

1993 an administrative law judge (ALJ) found him disabled as of October 1991. A

June 1998 continuing-disability review resulted in the continuation of benefits.

Following a subsequent continuing-disability review, however, in October 2001

Appellate Case: 04-3366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938597
-2-

Pense was notified that his disability had ceased and his benefits would stop in

December 2001. After a hearing, another ALJ determined Pense’s impairments alone

or combined were severe, but not of listing-level severity, and there had been medical

improvement related to his ability to work. The ALJ found that Pense’s allegations

were not totally credible, and that his residual functional capacity (RFC) had

improved. The ALJ further determined that Pense’s past relevant work was precluded

by his RFC, but that he was not disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines.

The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed.

Pense first challenges the ALJ’s credibility findings. While the ALJ could have

more clearly articulated the bases for his credibility findings, we conclude that the

ALJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by the multiple valid

observations the ALJ made in his discussion of the medical evidence and Pense’s

testimony and reports. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005)

(deference to ALJ’s credibility findings is warranted when they are supported by

good reasons and substantial evidence); Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1149 (8th

Cir. 2001) (any arguable deficiency in opinion writing does not require court to set

aside finding that is supported by substantial evidence). 

Pense also argues that the ALJ failed to explain properly the basis for his

findings in the continuing-disability review process. We disagree, as the ALJ

recognized the requisite steps in the continuing-disability review process and then

discussed each step. See Dixon v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 997, 1000-01 (8th Cir. 2003)

(outlining steps). Contrary to Pense’s suggestion, the medical problems he has

experienced since last being approved for benefits in 1998 cannot serve as a basis for

finding that he is still disabled, given that his diabetes and hypertension are well

controlled and that his leg fracture healed in a brief period without complications. 

Appellate Case: 04-3366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938597
-3-

Pense’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we

affirm, finding substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the ALJ’s

decision. See Dixon, 324 F.3d at 1000 (standard of review). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3366 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938597