The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for 1

the District of South Dakota. 

___________

No. 95-2889

___________

Inez One Star, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Shirley S. Chater, in her * District of South Dakota.

capacity as Commissioner of *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 29, 1996 

 Filed: March 5, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inez One Star appeals from the district court's order affirming the 1

decision of the Commissioner to deny One Star supplemental security income

(SSI), and denying her motion to remand the case to the Commissioner. We

affirm. 

One Star, a Native American, applied for SSI benefits in December

1992, alleging disability due to diabetes, high blood pressure, vision

problems, and arthritis. After her application was denied initially and

upon reconsideration, One Star requested and received a hearing before an

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals

Council denied review.
-2-

One Star was born November 25, 1939, had completed her high school

equivalency degree, and previously worked for two years as a teacher's aide

teaching Indian language to small children, and for two years as a maid in

a domestic abuse shelter. One Star stated she had cataract surgery in her

left eye, but still had problems with blurring, tearing, and headaches.

She could no longer sew or do bead work. She had a dull pain in her

elbows, wrists, and fingers. One Star stated she was an insulin-dependent

diabetic, and she took medication to control her high blood pressure. Her

lower back hurt from arthritis, and her hip at times felt numb after

sitting for more than one hour in an automobile. Her back hurt after she

sat for one and one-half hours and after she walked for one hour. 

Consultative doctor Melanie Schramm, D.O., found One Star's joint

pain, diabetes, and hypertension were controlled with medication. Schramm

stated One Star denied any back pain, had a full range of motion in both

upper and lower extremities, a slight increase in thoracic kyphosis

(curvature of spine), and would not be limited in her ability to stand,

sit, stoop, crawl, or carry. A radiology report from a July 1993 CT scan

showed relatively mild degenerative changes in the facet joints at the L4-5

level. 

The ALJ concluded One Star's residual functional capacity permitted

her to return to her past relevant work as a teacher's aide. The ALJ,

noting the consultative report and One Star's testimony, indicated she had

the physical residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of light

work. The ALJ concluded a Teacher Aide II (Dictionary of Occupational

Titles 249.367-074) was a light exertional, semi-skilled job, which One

Star could perform as that job is generally performed in the national

economy and/or as described by her. The ALJ also noted that One Star's

visual acuity was correctable to at least 20/30 (a level of function

consistent with reading). One Star sought judicial review. 
-3-

One Star submitted in the district court a motion to remand in light

of a neurological examination, which concluded that Inez had chronic low

back pain with degenerative disease seen on MRI scanning, that little could

be done medically, and that it was "obvious" One Star was disabled because

she could not sit for any great length of time or do heavy work.

The district court, concluding the substance of the neurological

report was neither new nor material, denied One Star's motion to remand.

The district court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner, concluding

that substantial evidence existed in the record as a whole to support the

Commissioner's findings. 

Our task on review is to determine whether substantial evidence in

the record as a whole supports the Commissioner's denial of benefits. See

Kirby v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1323, 1326 (8th Cir. 1991). One Star bore the

burden of proving at the administrative hearing that she suffered from a

medically determinable impairment or impairments which precluded the

performance of her past relevant work. See id. Upon our review of the

record, we conclude there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole

to support the ALJ's conclusion that One Star was able to perform her past

relevant work as a teacher's aide. All of the medical opinions, including

the reports One Star sought to add to the record, stated only that One Star

could not perform heavy work and could not sit for "any great length of

time." This is not inconsistent with the ability to perform light work.

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). 

One Star contends the ALJ failed to compare the physical and mental

demands of her past relevant work with what she is currently capable of

doing. See Kirby, 923 F.2d at 1326. The regulations provide, however,

that the ALJ may find the claimant able to perform past relevant work if

the claimant retains the ability to perform the "functional demands and job

duties of the occupation as
-4-

generally required by employers throughout the national economy." See

Martin v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Social

Security Ruling 82-61); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). We believe the job

description of Teacher Aide II sufficiently includes all the functions of

One Star's actual job. Cf. Evans v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir.

1994). 

The ALJ discounted One Star's complaints of back pain. Based on One

Star's daily activities, her admission as to the effectiveness of pain

medication, and the lack of objective medical evidence supporting the

extent of her back pain, that the ALJ properly discredited One Star's

allegations of disabling pain.

One Star argues that, under Geigle v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 1395, 1397

(8th Cir. 1992), the district court abused its discretion in failing to

remand the case to the Commissioner on the basis of new and material MRI

test results. One Star argues, as in Geigle, the MRI test results provided

objective medical support for her complaints. Although the medical report,

written seven months after the ALJ's decision, stated One Star had "chronic

back pain with degenerative disease," such a conclusion was not wholly

absent in the record. Cf. id. at 1397. The CT scan showed some

degenerative changes. To the extent the MRI results show progressive

deterioration, One Star may file a new application for benefits. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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