1The Honorable Lawrence J. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3438

___________

Raymond J. Wermers, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7, 2000

 Filed: November 15, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, 

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond J. Wermers appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1 for the District of South Dakota affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s

decision to deny his application for supplemental security income (SSI). For reversal,
-2-

appellant argues the denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence because

the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in: (1) concluding he was not severely

disabled from neurological complications following a 1976 fall, and not finding his

onset date retroactive to 1976; (2) permitting the vocational expert (VE) to testify as

to his vocational abilities; (3) misstating his physical abilities in hypothetical questions

to the VE; (4) considering Dr. Theresa Campbell’s opinion; and (5) not referring him

for a consultative medical examination. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

At a hearing before the ALJ, Wermers testified that he suffers from back and

neck pain and neurological problems. Following the hearing, the ALJ found that

Wermers’s impairments were not of listing-level severity and that Wermers retained the

residual functional capacity to perform medium-exertional, unskilled work.

Considering the factors set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.

1984), the ALJ discounted Wermers’s subjective complaints of disabling pain, finding

them inconsistent with the medical evidence and the information Wermers provided in

written reports.

We conclude substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision. See

Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). First, the

only evidence of any neurological complications from Wermers’s 1976 fall was his

testimony, which the ALJ properly discredited based on the lack of supporting medical

evidence and on Wermers’s description of his daily activities. See Johnston v. Apfel,

210 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ’s finding that claimant’s impairments were not

severe was supported by inconsistencies between subjective complaints, medical

record, and daily activities). Wermers, moreover, cannot receive SSI benefits for any

months preceding the filing of his application. See Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183,

1185 (8th Cir. 1989). Second, the VE was qualified to testify. Third, in the

hypothetical questions to the VE, the ALJ accurately characterized Wermers’s

testimony--to the extent the ALJ found it credible--about his physical abilities. See
-3-

Warburton v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 1999); Haggard v. Apfel, 175 F.3d

591, 595 (8th Cir. 1999). Fourth, the ALJ properly considered Dr. Campbell’s opinion,

because it was formed after examining Wermers and reviewing his x-ray results, and

it was consistent with other treating physicians’ diagnoses. Cf. 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.927(d)(2) (2000) (treating physician’s opinion is accorded controlling weight

when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in record). Last, the

ALJ was not obligated to order a consultative examination, because he had sufficient

evidence from Wermers’s treating physicians to make a determination regarding the

alleged physical impairments. See id. § 416.917 (when claimant’s medical sources do

not give ALJ sufficient medical evidence about impairments to determine whether

claimant is disabled, ALJ may order consultative examination).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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