___________

No. 95-2332

___________

Thang T. Nguyen, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Shirley S. Chater, * 

Commissioner of the Social * 

Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 11, 1995

 Filed: February 2, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Thang T. Nguyen appeals the district court's affirmance of a

denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits by the Social

Security Administration. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Nguyen applied for disability benefits on January 27, 1993.

Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. She

then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).

After the hearing, the ALJ found Nguyen did not suffer from a

severe impairment and denied her claim. The Appeals Council

affirmed the decision, as did the district court. 
-2-

Nguyen suffers from osteoarthritis. She complains of pain in

her shoulders, back, hands, and knees. She was approaching sixty

years old at the time of the hearing and had been employed as a

food worker in her native country of Vietnam. She has no formal

education, cannot speak English and can neither read nor write in

any language. She is small in stature, weighing eighty-eight

pounds and measuring fifty-four inches in height.

At the hearing, Nguyen testified through an interpreter that

her knees and back cause the most pain but that she is able to

relieve it with hot, wet towels. She uses the hot, wet towels

three times a week. She stated that her knees become sore and numb

after standing for fifteen minutes or walking farther than two

blocks. She also testified that she visits her neighbors, cooks

her own meals, does her own laundry, and attends church. 

Nguyen was seen by a physician regularly between June 1992 and

September 1992, and again in March 1993. The physician concluded

that Nguyen "has generalized osteoarthritis with significant

osteoarthritis of both knees." He further noted that the condition

improved with medication (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug).

Nguyen was also seen, at the ALJ's request, by another doctor, who

found normal range of motion but noted that she "may generally not

be in good condition from a musculoskeletal standpoint." Neither

physician rendered an opinion on whether Nguyen would be able to

perform work, nor placed any work-related restrictions on her. 

The ALJ applied the familiar five-step analysis prescribed in

the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). In the

sequential analysis, the ALJ first determines whether an applicant

for disability benefits is engaged in "substantial gainful

activity." Williams v. Sullivan, 960 F.2d 86, 88 (8th Cir. 1992);

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If the answer is yes, the person is not

disabled and benefits are denied; if the answer is no, the ALJ

moves to step two in the determination. At step two, the claimant
 1

The ability to do most work activities encompasses "the

abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." Williams v.

Sullivan, 960 F.2d 86, 88 (8th Cir. 1992). Examples include

physical functions such as walking, sitting, standing, lifting,

pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; capacities for

seeing, hearing, and speaking; understanding, carrying out and

remembering simple instructions; use of judgment; responding

appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations;

and dealing with changes in a routine work situation. Id. at 88-

89; 20 C.F.R. § 1521(b).

-3-

bears the burden of establishing that she has a severe impairment

that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do

basic work activities.1 Williams, 960 F.2d at 88. If the claimant

fails to show that she has a severe impairment, the analysis ends

and the claimant is found to be "not disabled." Id. If the

claimant succeeds, however, the ALJ proceeds to determine whether

the claimant can return to her former work, and, if not, whether

there are other jobs in the economy that she can perform. Id.

When making those determinations, the ALJ may consider age,

education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). 

At step two of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that

Nguyen had not demonstrated that she had an impairment so severe

that it limited her ability to do basic work activities.

Accordingly, he did not consider the impact of vocational factors

such as age, stature, education, and work experience on her ability

to work. 

Nguyen argues that the ALJ improperly terminated the

sequential evaluation process at step two--using the wrong standard

to evaluate the severity of her impairments. She contends that the

ALJ should have considered vocational factors such as age,

education and work experience, and that if those factors had been

considered, she would be entitled to benefits.
-4-

II. DISCUSSION

 Our task on appeal is limited to a determination of whether

the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence in

the record as a whole. Siemers v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 299, 301 (8th

Cir. 1995). We consider evidence that supports the decision along

with evidence that detracts from it. Id. If, after review, we

find it possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the

evidence and one of those positions represents the Commissioner's

findings, we must affirm the decision of the Commissioner. Id. 

We adhere to the principle that the sequential evaluation

process may only be terminated at step two when an impairment or

combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal effect

on the claimant's ability to work. Henderson v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d

19, 21 (8th Cir. 1991). Denial of benefits at step two "is

justified only for `those claimants whose medical impairments are

so slight that it is unlikely they would be found to be disabled

even if their age, education, and experience were taken into

account.'" Siemers, 47 F.3d at 302 (quoting Bowen v. Yuckert, 482

U.S. 137, 153 (1987)). 

We agree with the ALJ that Nguyen has failed to demonstrate

that she has an impairment that is more than slight. The ALJ

concluded that Nguyen does not have a medically severe impairment

based on the medical evidence and on Nguyen's own testimony. The

medical evidence shows that Nguyen has osteoarthritis that improves

with medication. Nguyen testified that mild anti-inflammatory

medication offers her some relief from the pain. We find that the

ALJ properly considered and discounted Nguyen's subjective

complaints of disabling pain. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d

1320, 1321-22 (8th Cir. 1984). Nguyen's daily activities are

incompatible with disabling pain. That Nguyen is otherwise

unemployable because she lacks either language skills or education

does not enter into the calculus absent a severe impairment. 
-5-

III. CONCLUSION

We have carefully reviewed the record and find substantial

evidence supporting the ALJ's determination that Nguyen's physical

impairments are not medically severe. Accordingly, the judgment of

the district court is affirmed. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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