### The Honorable John B. Jones, United State s 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 capacity as Commissioner of * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee.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 fro m the district court's order affirming the 1 decision of the Commissioner to deny One Star su pplemental security income (SSI), and denying he r motion to remand the case to the Commissioner. We affirm.

One S tar, a Native American, applied for SSI benefits in Decembe r 1992, alleging disability due to diabetes, high blood pressure, visio n 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 Sta r was born November 25, 1939, had completed her high schoo l equivalency degree, and previously worked for two years as a teacher's aid e teaching Indian language to small children, and for two years as a maid in a domestic abuse shelter. One Star stated she h ad cataract surgery in her lef t eye, but still had problems with blurring, tearing, and headaches

. Sh e could no longer sew or do bead work. She had a dull pain in he r elbows, wrists, and fingers. One Star stated sh e 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 afte r 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.

Consu ltative doctor Melanie Schramm, D.O., found One Star's join t 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 kyphosi s (curvatur e 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 c oncluded 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 te stimony, indicated she had the physical residual functional capacity to per form a wide range of light work. The ALJ concluded a Teacher Aide II (Dictionary of Occupationa l Titles 249.367-074) was a light exertional, semi-skilled job, which On e Star could perform as that job is generally performed in the nationa l economy and/or as described by her. The ALJ also noted that One Star' s visu al acuity was correctable to at least 20/30 (a level of functio n consistent with reading). One Star sought judicial review.

### -3- One Star submitted in the district c ourt 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 coul d 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 neurologica l report was neither new nor material, denied One Star's motion to remand. The district court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner, concludin g that substantial evid ence existed in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner's findings.

Our task on review is to determine whether substantial evidence i n 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
me dically determinable impairment or impairments which precluded th e perfo rmance of her past relevant work. See id. Upon our review of th e record, we conclude there is substantial evidenc e in the record as a whole to support the ALJ's conclusion that One Star wa s able to perform her past relevant work as a teacher's aide. All of the m edical opinions, including the reports One Star sought to add to the record, stated only that One Sta r could n ot perform heavy work and could not sit for "any great length o f 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 o f her past relevant work with what she is currently capable o f doing. S ee 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 jo b duties of the occupation as

### -4-

genera lly required by employers throughout the national economy." Se e Martin v. Sullivan , 901 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Socia l Security Ruling 82-61); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). We believe the jo b description of Teache r 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 compla ints of back pain. Based on One Star's daily activities, her admission as to the effectiveness of pai n medica tion, and the lack of objective medical evidence supporting th e 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 t o 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 provide d objective medical support for her complaints. Although the medical report , written seven months after the ALJ's decision, stated One Star had "chroni c back pain with degenerative disease," such a conclusion was not wholl y absent in th e record. Cf. id. at 1397. The CT scan showed som e degener ative changes. To the extent the MRI results show progressiv e 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.