Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02050/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Tomasa Torres
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2050

___________

Tomasa Torres, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue, *

Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 3, 2010

Filed: April 21, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tomasa Torres appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the final

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

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In her November

2004 application, Torres alleged she has been disabled since April 2001. After a

hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Torres’s impairments of mild

cardiomyopathy, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with no stenosis,

Appellate Case: 09-2050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2010 Entry ID: 3656781
-2-

moderate obesity, and mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, controlled with

medication, were severe but did not meet or equal a listed impairment; her allegations

regarding her limitations were not fully credible; she had the residual functional

capacity to perform light work with additional limitations; and she could perform her

past relevant work (PRW) as a light assembler, or she could perform other work, such

as bench assembler and packager. After the Appeals Council denied review, the

district court affirmed.

Torres argues that the ALJ wrongly discredited her testimony and that evidence

of her mental limitations submitted after the hearing shows that she could not perform

her PRW or other jobs in the economy. We hold that the ALJ’s credibility finding is

supported by consideration of Torres’s poor work history, daily activities, medical

records, and lack of medical treatment. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th

Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to

make). We also agree with the Appeals Council that the records regarding mental

limitations that Torres submitted after the ALJ’s decision did not provide a basis for

changing the ALJ’s decision. The records indicate that Torres was prescribed

medication which helped control her depression and anxiety. The most recent

treatment record listed Torres’s depression as mild to moderate and her panic disorder

as in partial remission. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b) (Appeals Council must consider

additional evidence if it is new and material and relates to time period before ALJ’s

decision); Kitts v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (when

Appeals Council considers new evidence, this court considers whether ALJ’s decision

is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including new

evidence); Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2007) (where impairment

can be controlled by medication, it cannot be considered disabling).

Finally, although Torres argues that the ALJ did not consider the specific

requirements of her PRW, the vocational expert (VE) is permitted to offer evidence

of a claimant’s PRW as it is performed in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R.

Appellate Case: 09-2050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2010 Entry ID: 3656781
-3-

§ 404.1560(b)(2) (VE may offer evidence concerning demands of claimant’s PRW,

either as claimant actually performed it or as generally performed in national

economy); Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 853-54 (8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may

properly elicit testimony from VE in evaluating claimant’s capacity to perform PRW,

and may look at functional demands as required by employers in national economy).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2050 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2010 Entry ID: 3656781