The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred

for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 95-3980

___________

Yvonne Thomas, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the 

Shirley S. Chater, * Eastern District of Missouri.

Commissioner of Social Security *

Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 7, 1996

 Filed: October 22, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yvonne Thomas appeals from the district court's order affirming the 1

Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny her supplemental

security income (SSI) benefits. We affirm.

Thomas applied for SSI benefits in February 1993, complaining of foot

problems. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and

she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 

At the September 1993 hearing, at which Thomas elected to proceed

without her counsel present, Thomas testified that she was
-2-

born August 6, 1949, completed high school and attended college off and on

for three years, was 5'6" tall, and weighed about 245 pounds. Her prior

work experience consisted of work as a security guard, home health care

nurse's aide, bakery worker, and key-punch operator and typist. She stated

she had "heart attacks" in 1989 and 1991. Thomas stated that her foot

problem began in 1991, and she went to the hospital complaining of pain and

of falling down; she was given ibuprofen and then Naprosyn for the pain and

a crutch to help her walk; she was diagnosed with osteoarthritis. She

stated she did little housework, could stand on her feet for fifteen

minutes, and was in constant pain. 

A March 1993 consultative examination report noted only an

abnormality in the ankles, and found minor arthritic changes in the

metatarsal phalangeal joints, and flat feet; the doctor found good pulses

and no actual edema. X-rays showed an accessory scaphoid bone, but

otherwise no irregularities in the left or right foot and ankle. In

progress notes from a podiatry clinic, Thomas reported that the prescribed

Naprosyn helped relieve her pain. 

The ALJ concluded that Thomas's minor arthritic changes in the

metatarsal phlangeal joints limited her ability to perform work- related

activities, but did not meet or equal any listed impairment. The ALJ noted

the medical findings showed only minimal abnormalities, no doctor had

opined she was unable to work, and there was no medical evidence

substantiating her allegations of heart attacks. The ALJ concluded that

Thomas had no impairment which precluded sedentary work; at most, she was

prevented from prolonged walking, standing, or lifting beyond ten pounds,

and thus, she could return to her past relevant work as a security monitor,

typist, and key-punch operator. The ALJ, analyzing Thomas's subjective

complaints under the standards set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d

1320 (8th Cir. 1984), found that Thomas's complaints were not credible.

Thus, the ALJ concluded Thomas was not disabled.
-3-

Thomas sought Appeals Council review and submitted an additional

report from podiatrist M.D. Pawsat, stating that Thomas suffered from

"severe osteoarthritis secondary to congenital pes plano [flatfootedness]

valgus deformity bilateral which has failed to subdue with multiple

conservative therapies," including taping, strappings, Unna boots and

ankle/foot orthosis. Dr. Pawsat stated that Thomas's financial situation

limited further treatment, including surgical correction of her deformity.

The Appeals Council denied further review. 

Thomas sought judicial review. The district court granted the

Commissioner summary judgment. On appeal, Thomas reiterates the arguments

she presented in her motion for summary judgment; in her reply brief,

Thomas states she now weighs 300 pounds.

We conclude the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence submitted

after the initial determination was made. See Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d

619, 622 (8th Cir. 1994). The objective evidence considered by the ALJ

showed only minor arthritic abnormalities; although a report submitted to

the Appeals Council indicated that Thomas had "severe osteoarthritis," the

x-ray evidence did not support such a finding. Because that opinion is

contradicted by the record, the Commissioner was correct in not considering

it. See id.

 

Although the meager documentary evidence noted Thomas's pain, none

of that evidence correlated the magnitude of Thomas's subjective complaints

with the objective medical findings. The absence of objective medical

evidence is a factor in assessing credibility. Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d

1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 1989). Moreover, Thomas's condition appears to be

treatable, at least in part. See Stout v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th

Cir. 1993) (impairment controlled by treatment is not disabling). 
-4-

We also agree that Thomas's condition does not meet or equal any of

the Listed Impairments. Thomas's contention in her reply brief that she

now weighs 300 pounds may satisfy the listing for obesity, provided she has

met the time requirements, but she will have to file another application.

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.330(b); 416.909; Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 9.09

(Table II-Women).

Thomas argued the ALJ could not use, as prior relevant work

experience, her typist position which she left in 1980, because it

exceeded the fifteen-year limit under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565.

Thomas, however, applied for benefits in 1993 and was denied

benefits in 1994, within the fifteen-year period. Finally, because

the evidence supported that Thomas could sit for long periods and

could lift occasionally, there was substantial evidence to support

that she could perform sedentary work. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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