1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Terry I. Adelman, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2506

___________

Debbie Patrick, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of Social Security, *

*

 Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2002

Filed: March 6, 2003

___________

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Debbie Patrick (Patrick) appeals the district court's1

 affirmance of the denial

of Social Security disability benefits. Patrick applied for benefits in October 1997,

alleging disability since February 1, 1996, resulting from Graves' disease. After the

Commissioner denied Patrick's application and once again upon reconsideration, the
-2-

Commissioner granted Patrick a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

The ALJ determined Patrick was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act

and denied her application for benefits. Because the record contains substantial

evidence to support the ALJ's finding, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 21, 1997, Patrick applied for disability benefits. Patrick

complained she suffered from the disabling effects of Graves' disease. Specifically,

she argued pain, swelling, and spasms in her legs, knees, toes, back, wrists, and hands

have left her unable to work since February 1, 1996. On January 12, 1999, after a

hearing, the ALJ determined Patrick was not disabled as defined by the Social

Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) & (2)(A) (2000). On March 23, 2000, the

Appeals Council denied her request for review. The district court affirmed the ALJ's

denial of benefits.

On appeal, Patrick argues the ALJ misinterpreted important medical evidence

which supported Patrick's testimony regarding her physical limitations and daily

activities, and which reflected significant nonexertional limitations including fatigue,

pain, swelling and heat intolerance. Patrick argues, together, these physical

limitations precluded her from engaging in the full range of activities required for

sedentary work.

The evidence presented during the hearing reveals that in May 1997, due to

reported weight loss and eye problems, Patrick was diagnosed with Graves' disease.

On July 3, 1997, Patrick's doctor noted hand tremors, eye lid lag, bulging eyeballs,

large goiter, low weight (87 lbs.), increased appetite, heat intolerance, heart problems,

and blurry vision. The doctor recommended radioiodine therapy. In September and

October 1997, Patrick complained of pain and swelling in her feet and ankles, and

also fatigue. In November 1997, Patrick's eyes were returning to normal. However,

on December 2, 1997, another doctor noted Patrick's complaints with swelling in her
-3-

legs and feet, spasms, vision problems, including bulging eyeballs; however, her

goiter had reduced in size. At that time, Patrick had full strength, normal gait, full

range of motion and no tenderness or spasms in her back. Further, the doctor noted

Patrick was recovering from Graves' disease, although it would be several months

before she would respond fully to the medication. Finally, the doctor wrote, Patrick

says she feels fatigued, but he noted she was making little effort to do anything. 

In February 1998, Patrick told Dr. Milton Levin (Dr. Levin), her treating

physician, she had cramping in her legs when she stood too long. In April, an eye

doctor prescribed eye drops to help with Patrick's eyes, but Patrick failed to return for

a follow up appointment. In a report dated May 21, 1998, Dr. Levin stated Patrick

had limitations on "basic strength factors." Of the five factors, two were the abilities

to lift and carry. Next to those two factors, Dr. Levin wrote "N/A." As to the other

factors, he opined Patrick could stand and/or walk ten minutes at a time for a total of

two to three hours and sit (recline) for one to one and one-half hours continuously for

a total of six to seven hours. He included a limited ability to push or pull, and stated

she should not climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or bend and was limited in her

ability to reach. Dr. Levin stated Patrick had limited problems with her eyes and was

unable to work around heights, machinery, temperature extremes, dust, fumes,

humidity, and vibration. He suggested that reclining up to 30 minutes, lying down

up to 30 minutes, and propping up her legs one to three times per day would be

helpful. 

At the hearing Patrick testified she had pain seven to eight times a day in the

joints in her knees, toes, back, and wrist, but medication helped alleviate the pain.

She also suffered swelling in her legs, back, wrist, and hand. She testified she had

regained the weight she had lost, but her weight fluctuated. Patrick reported her eyes

were dry because her eyes do not close completely. Patrick estimated she could stand

for only three minutes before having spasms in her knees and could sit for only one

hour before having spasms in her hips and toes. Patrick mostly reclined, watched
-4-

television and talked to her neighbors. She could lift a coffee cup, but could not lift

a gallon of milk. Patrick did no housework and did not drive a car. Patrick's account

of her daily activities was confirmed by her husband.

The ALJ found "no objective medical record supporting the limitations the

claimant has alleged. No treating or examining physician restricted her to lying down

and elevating her feet. There is no support for her allegation of spasms in her hips

and knees, and . . . the claimant was unable to describe how fatigued she felt since she

made little effort to do anything."

Patrick was 45 years old at the time of the hearing and has a tenth grade

education. She previously worked in restaurants as a shift manager, shift supervisor,

crew member, a lunch aide, cashier, and food server. The ALJ found Patrick does not

have the capacity to return to her former employment. However, the ALJ determined

Patrick has the residual functional capacity for a wide range of sedentary work,

concluding she is not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. 

Patrick contends the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination is not

based on substantial evidence. Additionally, she argues the ALJ committed reversible

error by applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, because the ALJ failed to

consider her subjective complaints of pain and physical restrictions.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

"We review the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security benefits to

determine if the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record."

Hildebrand v. Barnhart, 302 F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2002). "Substantial evidence is

less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept it as

adequate to support a decision." Beckley v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir.

1998). "In undertaking this analysis, our court 'should neither consider a claim de
-5-

novo, nor abdicate its function to carefully analyze the entire record.'" Hildebrand,

302 F.3d at 838 (citation omitted).

B. Residual Functional Capacity

Patrick argues the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination was not

based on substantial evidence. The ALJ discounted Patrick's subjective complaints

that she needed to lie down all day, because such complaints were not supported by

medical evidence. The ALJ relied on Dr. Levin's report that Patrick need only sit or

recline for six to seven hours per day, and lie down 30 minutes or elevate her legs one

to three times per day. The ALJ specifically noted that no doctor restricted Patrick

to lying down with her feet elevated all day. 

The ALJ found Patrick "has the residual functional capacity to lift and carry up

to ten pounds occasionally and a nominal weight frequently, to sit for six hours of an

eight-hour day." The parties dispute the weight restriction based upon different

interpretations of Dr. Levin's report. Dr. Levin's report is ambiguous about the

meaning of "N/A" written to the side of the questions regarding restrictions, if any,

on lifting weight on an occasional or frequent basis. Patrick interprets the "N/A" to

mean she should lift no weight, but the appellee and the district court interpret "N/A"

to mean there are no restrictions. Patrick failed to argue her interpretation of Dr.

Levin's report to the ALJ. She also failed to have Dr. Levin clarify the report or

testify at the hearing. Another doctor noted normal hand grip strength and no

musculoskeletal abnormalities. And another examining physician opined in May

1998, that Patrick could lift 25 pounds frequently and 50 pounds occasionally, could

stand, walk or sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour day, and had no limitations on pushing and

pulling. Neither the ALJ nor the parties relied on this report.

The ALJ's finding is consistent with the observations and the limitations

imposed by her physicians. Patrick's remaining complaints can be addressed with

medication. See Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir. 1995) ("If an impairment
-6-

can be controlled by treatment or medication, it cannot be considered disabling.")

(citation omitted). Therefore, we find substantial evidence in the record to support

the ALJ's determination.

C. Medical-Vocational Guidelines

The ALJ determined Patrick was unable to perform her past relevant work, but

had only "slight non-exertional limitations which do not significantly narrow the

range of work she is capable of performing." The ALJ used the Medical-Vocational

Guidelines, or GRIDS, as opposed to consulting a vocational expert, to determine

whether Patrick could perform a full range of sedentary work. A claimant is entitled

to have a vocational expert testify unless "the ALJ properly discredits the claimant's

complaint of a nonexertional impairment." See Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254,

258-59 (8th Cir. 1996). In this case, the nonexertional impairment is Patrick's need

to lie down or recline all day due to pain, swelling and fatigue. The ALJ did not err

in applying GRIDS, because the ALJ had permissibly discredited Patrick's complaints

of fatigue and swelling based on the lack of evidence supporting these contentions.

III. CONCLUSION 

Because the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's denial

of Social Security disability benefits, we affirm the order of the district court. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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