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

### for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was r eferred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 2 8 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 Commissioner of Social Security * Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee.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 fro m the district court's order affirming the 1 Commi ssioner of Social Security's decision to deny her supplementa l security income (SSI) benefits. We affirm.
Thomas applied for SSI benefits in February 1993, complaining o f foot problems. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration, an d she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

At th e September 1993 hearing, at which Thomas elected to procee d without her counsel present, Thomas testified that she was

### -2-

born August 6, 1949, completed high school and a ttended 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 car e nurse's aide, bakery worker, and key-punch operator and typist. She state d she had "heart attacks" in 1989 and 1991. Thomas stated that her foo t problem began in 1991, and she went to the hospital complaining of pain an d of falling down; she was given ibuprofen and then Naprosyn for the pain an d
a crutch to help her walk; she was diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Sh e stat ed she did little housework, could stand on her feet for fiftee n minutes, and was in constant pain.

A March 1993 consultative examination report noted only a n abnormality in the ankles, and found minor arthritic changes in th e metatarsal phalangeal joints, and flat feet; the doctor found good pulses and no ac tual edema. X-rays showed an accessory scaphoid bone, bu t otherw ise no irregularities in the left or right foot and ankle. I n progress notes from a podiatry clinic, Thomas re ported that the prescribed Naprosyn helped relieve her pain.

The ALJ concluded that Thomas's minor arthritic changes in th e metatarsal phlangeal joints limited her ability to perform work- related activities, but did not meet or equal any listed impairment. The ALJ note d the me dical findings showed only minimal abnormalities, no doctor ha d opi ned she was unable to work, and there was no medical evidenc e substantiating her allegations of heart attacks. The ALJ concluded that Thomas had no impairm ent which precluded sedentary work; at most, she was prevented from prolon ged 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 subjectiv e complaints under the standards set forth in Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 132 0 (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 additiona l report from podiatrist M.D. Pawsat, stating that Thomas suffered fro m "severe osteoarthriti s secondary to congenital pes plano [flatfootedness] valgus deformity bilateral which has failed to subdue with multipl e con servative therapies," including taping, strappings, Unna boots an d ankle/foot orthosis. Dr. Pawsat stated that Thomas's financial situation limited further treatment, including surgical co rrection of her deformity. The Appeals Council denied further review.

Thomas sought judicial review. The district court granted th e Commissioner summary judgment. On appeal, Thoma s reiterates the arguments she presen ted in her motion for summary judgment; in her reply brief , Thomas states she now weighs 300 pounds.

We conclu de the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence submitte d after the initial determination was made. See Riley v. Shalala , 18 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 1994). The objective evidence considered by the AL J showed only minor art hritic abnormalities; although a report submitted to the Appeals Council indicated that Thomas had "s evere osteoarthritis," the x-ray evi dence did not support such a finding. Because that opinion i s contradicted by the record, the Commissioner was correct in not considerin g it. See id.

Al thoughthe meager documentary evidence noted Thomas's pain, non e of that evidence correlated the magnitude of Thomas's subjective complaint s withthe objective medical findings. The absence of objective medica l evidence is a factor in assessing credibility. Cruse v. Bowen , 867 F.2d 1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 1989). Moreover, Thomas's condition appears to b e treatable, at least i n part. See Stout v. Shalala , 988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1993) (impairment controlled by treatment is not disabling).

### -4- We also a gree 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 ha s met the time requirem ents, but she will have to file another application. See 20 C .F.R. §§ 416.330(b); 416.909; Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 9.0 9 (Table II-Women)


### .
Thomas argued the ALJ could not use, as prior relevant wor k experience, her typist positio n which she left in 1980, because it
exce eded the fifteen-year limit under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565
. Thomas , however, applied for benefits in 1993 and was denie d 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.