*The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by

designation. 

___________

No. 95-2355

___________

Kimberly A. Miller, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Shirley S. Chater, * 

Commissioner of the Social * [UNPUBLISHED]

Security Administration, *

* Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 15, 1995

 Filed: February 1, 1996 ___________

Before McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, District

Judge.*

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kimberly A. Miller appeals the district court's affirmance of

a denial of benefits by the Social Security Administration. We

affirm. 

Miller is mildly mentally retarded and suffers from a

personality disorder (adjustment disorder with anxious mood). She

was thirty-two years old at the time of her application for

benefits and has a high-school education as well as vocational

training as a nurse's aide. She was formerly employed as a nurse's

aide, toy assembler, and housekeeper/cleaner. 
-2-

After her application was denied initially and on

reconsideration, Miller appealed and a hearing was held before an

administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ applied the five-step

sequential analysis prescribed in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(a)-(f). In addition, the ALJ followed the special

procedures for cases in which a claimant alleges mental

impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a; § 416.920a; Montgomery v.

Shalala, 30 F.3d 98, 99 (8th Cir. 1994). In order to find

disability, the ALJ must determine whether: 1) the claimant is

working; 2) the claimant's physical or mental impairments are

severe; 3) the claimant's impairments prevent a resumption of past

work; and 4) the claimant's impairments preclude any other type of

work. Montgomery, 30 F.3d at 99. The special procedures for

mental impairment claims also require either the ALJ or a

psychiatrist to complete a Psychiatric Review Technique Form

(PRTF). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(2); Hardy v. Chater, 64 F.3d

405, 408 (8th Cir. 1995).

 

The ALJ found that the evidence established that Miller has

decreased intellectual functioning and an adjustment disorder with

anxious mood but that she does not have a presumptively disabling

disorder under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt.

P, app. 1, pt. A § 12.00 (the Listing of Impairments). The listing

for presumptively disabling mental retardation requires an

intelligence-quotient (I.Q.) test score under 59 or under 70 in

combination with other disabling conditions. Id. at 12.05(A)-(D).

Miller was tested several times and her full-scale I.Q. test scores

were 64 in 1977, 74 in 1980 and 73 in 1991. The ALJ found that the

limitations imposed by Miller's conditions would not preclude her

return to her past work as a housekeeper or a toy assembler. In

making these conclusions, the ALJ consulted and relied on the

examinations of several psychologists and psychiatrists. The ALJ
 1

The ALJ discounted the other intelligence test scores because

the psychologists who administered the tests questioned whether the

tests accurately represented Miller's I.Q. in consideration of her

academic achievements. 

-3-

relied on the intelligence test score from 1980.1 The ALJ also

elicited the testimony of a vocational expert who testified that a

claimant with Miller's limitations could meet the demands of work

as a toy assembler or a housekeeper. Accordingly, the ALJ found

that Miller was not under a disability as defined in the Social

Security Act.

The district court affirmed the ALJ'S finding, noting that the

ALJ properly considered and discounted certain of Miller's

intelligence test scores and properly considered Miller's

limitations regarding stress and anxiety. 

Miller contends that the ALJ and the district court erred in

discounting certain consultative medical sources which caused the

ALJ to pose faulty hypothetical questions to the vocational expert.

She challenges the ALJ's use of a stress scale with a range of one

to ten when posing the hypothetical to the vocational expert. On

appeal we affirm the district court if the ALJ's decision is

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1995). 

We have carefully reviewed the record and find substantial

evidence supports the ALJ's decision. The ALJ properly discounted

intelligence test scores the validity of which had been questioned

by the psychologists who had administered the tests as inconsistent

with Miller's educational history. Also, the hypothetical posed by

the ALJ included all of Miller's impairments found credible by the

ALJ. The use of a stress scale is an acceptable shorthand for

identifying a claimant's stress tolerance. Id. at 275. In this

case, psychiatric reports support the ALJ's conclusion that Miller

could endure a stress level of three on a scale of one to ten. We
-4-

find that the record supports the ALJ's conclusion that Miller

could perform her past relevant work as a toy assembler or a

housekeeper/cleaner. We affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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