THE HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

___________

No. 96-2614

___________

Debbie A. Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner *

of the Social Security *

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

__________

 Submitted: December 13, 1996

 Filed: March 6, 1997

__________

Before McMILLIAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and WEBBER, District Judge. 1

___________

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Debbie Johnson appeals the denial of Social Security Disability

Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The Social Security

Commissioner (Commissioner) denied Johnson benefits after determining that,

although Johnson could not return to her former work, she could perform

jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

Johnson's sole claim on appeal is that the vocational expert's testimony

is insufficient to meet the Commissioner's burden of proof. We disagree

and affirm.
 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge 2

for the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

I.

Johnson claims to be disabled because of a back injury she suffered

in a car accident in January 1992. She applied for disability benefits on

July 26, 1993. The Commissioner denied her initial request for benefits

and again denied her request for benefits on reconsideration. Johnson

appealed the denial to an administrative law judge (ALJ). After holding

a hearing, the ALJ denied Johnson's request for disability benefits.

Johnson appealed the ALJ's decision to an administrative appeals council,

which also denied Johnson's request for disability benefits. Johnson then

sought judicial review of the council's denial of benefits in district

court. The district court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to

2

deny benefits. Johnson now appeals the district court's decision. 

Johnson is thirty-six years old and has had severe back problems ever

since she was involved in a car accident in January 1992. She has two

herniated disks, and alleges obesity, headaches, and dizziness as further

causes of severe impairment. She has been examined by a variety of

physicians who have come to a variety of different conclusions about her

medical condition. None of the physicians, however, has advised her to

stop working. At least one physician has concluded that Johnson should not

lift anything above thirty pounds. Johnson's own remarks to her treating

physicians about her headaches and dizziness are inconsistent. She has

stated that her headaches and dizziness are severe enough to require

missing work two days a week, but she has also denied having headaches and

dizziness. The ALJ found that Johnson held a job as a telemarketer after

her alleged onset of disability date, but that she quit the job because of

a pay cut.
-3-

Johnson is a single parent who lives with her eleven-year-old

daughter in a two-story duplex. She has stated that, although her daughter

normally washes the dishes, she does light housekeeping and the cooking.

In addition, Johnson drives her daughter to and from school and drives to

and from work and church. This amounts to about thirty miles of driving

each week. 

According to the ALJ, Johnson's impairments or combination of

impairments do not meet or equal the criteria of any impairment listed in

the Social Security Regulation's Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R.

§ 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Johnson takes no medication for her lower back

pain, although she describes the pain as persistent. Johnson has not

sought medical treatment since October 1993. She has never been treated

for her alleged headaches and dizziness. 

Although the ALJ determined that Johnson could not return to her past

relevant work, the ALJ also found that Johnson is capable of performing

jobs that "exist[] in significant numbers in the national economy . . . .

Examples of such jobs are: addresser, document preparer, and telemarketer."

ALJ Op. at 13, Finding No. 11. In support of this finding, the ALJ noted

that the vocational expert said that Johnson could perform sedentary,

unskilled labor like that of an addresser or a document preparer, of which

"there are 200 positions in Iowa and 10,000 positions nationwide." ALJ Op.

at 10. The ALJ specifically noted that the vocational expert had stated

that these figures were "just a representative sampling of a larger number

of jobs the claimant was capable of doing," including telemarketing, a job

in which the claimant was employed at the time of the hearing. Id.

(emphasis added). 

Based on the ALJ's findings that Johnson is able to perform jobs that

exist in significant numbers in the national economy, the Commissioner

denied Johnson's request for disability benefits. On appeal, Johnson

maintains that there do not exist in "significant
-4-

numbers" jobs that she is capable of performing and, as a result, the

Commissioner did not meet her burden of proof to show that Johnson is not

disabled under the Social Security Act. 

II.

When reviewing the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits to a

claimant, this Court must determine "whether there is substantial evidence

based on the entire record to support the ALJ's factual findings, and

whether his decision was based on legal error." Clark v. Chater, 75 F.3d

414, 416 (8th Cir. 1996); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1994). Substantial

evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion." Clark, 75 F.3d at 416 (quotations and

citation omitted). This Court must consider "both evidence that supports

and evidence that detracts from the Secretary's decision, but we may not

reverse merely because substantial evidence exists for the opposite

decision." Johnson v. Chater, 87 F.3d 1015, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). The ALJ

may discount subjective complaints that are inconsistent with medical

reports, daily activities, and other evidence. See Haynes v. Shalala, 26

F.3d 812, 814-15 (8th Cir. 1994).

The ALJ found that Johnson could not return to her past relevant

work. As a result, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to prove that

Johnson is not disabled under the Social Security Act. See Pickner v.

Sullivan, 985 F.2d 401, 403 (8th Cir. 1993) ("Only after the claimant

establishes that a disability precludes performance of past relevant work

will the burden shift to the Secretary to prove that the claimant can

perform work."); Evans v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 832, 835 (8th Cir. 1994). The

burden was on the Commissioner to demonstrate that there are other jobs

available in the national economy that Johnson can perform. See Evans, 21

F.3d at 835; see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (1994); 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1560, § 404.1561 (1996). 
-5-

One way in which the Commissioner can meet the burden of proof

necessary to show that a claimant who suffers from nonexertional pain is

not disabled under the Social Security Act is through the testimony of a

vocational expert. Evans, 21 F.3d at 835. Hypothetical questions posed

to the vocational expert "need only include those impairments that the ALJ

accepts as true." Haynes, 26 F.3d at 815; see also House v. Shalala, 34

F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1994). 

To decide whether work exists in significant numbers, this Circuit

has adopted the standards set forth in Hall v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 272, 275

(6th Cir. 1988). See Jenkins v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1083, 1087 (8th Cir. 1988)

(adopting Hall). After discussing certain factors that a judge might

consider in making this determination, such as the reliability of the

claimant's and the vocational expert's testimony, the Hall court stated

that "[t]he decision should ultimately be left to the trial judge's common

sense in weighing the statutory language as applied to a particular

claimant's factual situation." Jenkins, 861 F.2d at 1087 (quoting Hall,

837 F.2d at 275). 

Here, the Commissioner met her burden of showing that Johnson is not

disabled because the vocational expert's testimony was sufficient to show

that there exist a significant number of jobs in the economy that Johnson

can perform. The vocational expert testified that a person like Johnson

could perform sedentary, unskilled labor. The vocational expert noted that

the addresser and document preparer jobs were sedentary, unskilled labor

that Johnson could perform, and that there existed 200 jobs of addresser

or document preparer in Iowa and 10,000 in the national economy. The

vocational expert further testified that these figures were merely

representative of a larger category of jobs that Johnson could perform,

including telemarketing. The vocational expert did not give figures to

describe the total number of unskilled, sedentary jobs in Iowa or the

national economy. However, at the
 Johnson relies on several district court cases to attempt to 3

bolster her contention that 200 jobs in Iowa is not a significant

number of jobs and that the Commissioner consequently failed to

show that Johnson is not disabled. See, e.g., Jimenez v. Shalala,

879 F. Supp. 1069, 1076 (D. Colo. 1995) (holding that "200-250 jobs

spread across Colorado is not significant"); Waters v. Secretary,

827 F. Supp. 446, 449 (W.D. Mich. 1992) (holding that 1000 jobs in

Michigan, all of which would require at least 180 miles of travel

to get to them, is not a significant number). These cases are

unpersuasive, however, particularly in light of the overall record

before this Court. The cases Johnson cites are all fact-intensive,

and none stand for the proposition that 200 jobs in Iowa is not a

significant number.

-6-

time of the hearing before the ALJ, Johnson was engaged in one of the

sedentary jobs that the vocational expert said she was capable of

performing, telemarketing. 

3

Finally, the Commissioner's decision to deny Johnson disability

benefits is bolstered by the fact that Johnson received unemployment

compensation during the time she claims to have been disabled. This Court

has noted that "[a] claimant may admit an ability to work by applying for

unemployment compensation benefits because such an applicant must hold

himself out as available, willing and able to work." Jernigan v. Sullivan,

948 F.2d 1070, 1074 (8th Cir. 1991); see also Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d

1019, 1024 (8th Cir. 1994). Applying for unemployment benefits "may be

some evidence, though not conclusive, to negate" a claim of disability.

Jernigan, 948 F.2d at 1074.

III.

Because the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was supported

by substantial evidence, we affirm. 
-7-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.