Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01498/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
John I. Bell
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1498

___________

John I. Bell, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 17, 2004

Filed: February 9, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following surgery to repair a badly fractured shoulder and arm in April 2000,

John I. Bell applied for social security disability insurance and supplemental security

income benefits. After a hearing at which Bell testified that he cannot close his left

hand or grasp small objects, cannot raise his left arm, and has constant pain in his left

hand and shoulder plus chronic back pain, the administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled

that Bell is not entitled to benefits because, although he has severe impairments to his

left arm and back, his subjective complaints of disabling pain are not credible and he

Appellate Case: 04-1498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2005 Entry ID: 1865437 
1

The HONORABLE RICHARD E. DORR, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

retains the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as sales

clerk and head cashier. 

Bell then filed this action against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking

judicial review of the adverse agency decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Bell argued

that the ALJ failed to fully investigate the physical and mental demands of Bell’s past

relevant work and improperly relied on the testimony of a vocational expert whose

description of Bell’s past relevant work conflicted with the Dictionary of

Occupational Titles (DOT). The district court1

 granted summary judgment in favor

of the Commissioner, concluding in a thorough opinion that substantial evidence on

the record as a whole supports the agency’s decision, that the ALJ with the assistance

of the vocational expert made an adequate inquiry into the nature of Bell’s past

relevant work as he actually performed it, and that the vocational expert’s testimony

did not conflict with the DOT. Bell appeals, raising the same issues to this court.

After careful review of the administrative record, we affirm for the reasons stated in

the district court’s Order dated January 27, 2004.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2005 Entry ID: 1865437