United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3855

___________

Linda S. Musial, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 1, 2009

Filed: October 6, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Linda Sue Musial appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied her application for

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In her October 2001

application, Musial alleged she has been disabled since August 2001. After a hearing,

an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Musial’s impairments were severe

in combination but did not equal a listed impairment; her allegations regarding the

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
degree of her pain and limitations were not fully credible; she had the residual

functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work with some additional limitations; she

could perform her past relevant work (PRW) of data entry clerk, accounting clerk, and

telephone operator; and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directed a finding of “not

disabled.” We reject Musial’s arguments for reversal as follows.

Musial argues that the ALJ disregarded the opinions of her treating physicians

and instead accorded significant weight to the assessment of Dr. Robert Hughes, a

state agency medical consultant who did not examine her. Dr. Hughes essentially

found that Musial had the RFC to perform light work, with occasional climbing. 

Because Musial did not provide medical evidence of specific functional restrictions

imposed by her treating doctors that conflicted with Dr. Hughes’s RFC analysis, we

find the ALJ did not err in crediting his opinion. Although Musial points to treatment

notes from Dr. Gregory Markway as indicating that she must lie down for two hours

after standing for two hours, the record shows that Dr. Markway was relating Musial’s

comments to him rather than giving his opinion. Musial also points to a letter from

Dr. Karlynn Sievers indicating that Musial required frequent rest breaks to control her

pain. Dr. Sievers, however, did not provide a function-by-function analysis of

Musial’s limitations, and it is unclear what is meant by “frequent rest breaks.” 

Finally, Dr. Ann Warner, a rheumatologist who treated Musial for fibromyalgia,

indicated that she would not give an opinion that Musial was unable to work. See

Dunahoo v. Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038-39 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ’s credibility

determination was supported by substantial evidence where he recited appropriate

factors and noted inconsistencies in record, such as lack of physician-ordered

functional restrictions).

We hold that the ALJ’s credibility finding is supported by consideration of

Musial’s medical records, her daily activities, and her admission that she would have

been able to continue working in August 2001 if she had not been let go for salary

reasons. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately

-2-
explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to make). Finally, the ALJ

elicited testimony from the vocational expert that, given the RFC the ALJ found

supported by the record, Musial could perform her PRW as it is performed in the

national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2) (VE may offer evidence

concerning demands of claimant’s PRW, either as claimant actually performed it or

as generally performed in national economy); Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 853-54

(8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may properly elicit testimony from VE in evaluating claimant’s

capacity to perform PRW, and may look at functional demands as required by

employers in national economy).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-