The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States

1

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-3117

___________

Leona Cady, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Shirley S. Chater, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Commissioner of the Social *

Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. * 

___________

 Submitted: December 12, 1995

 Filed: December 18, 1995

___________

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leona Cady appeals the district court's affirmance of the Social

1

Security Administration's denial of benefits. Because we find the district

court's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a

whole, we affirm.

Cady filed for supplemental social security benefits under Title XVI

in April 1991. Those benefits were denied initially in July 1991 and after

reconsideration, in September 1991. In October 1991, Cady requested a

hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following that hearing,

Cady was again denied benefits. The district court affirmed the ALJ's

decision. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the

district court.
-2-

Cady argues that the ALJ erred by improperly discounting both the

opinion of her treating physician and her own testimony and in failing to

find her disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. On

review, we must determine whether the denial of benefits is supported by

substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Rappoport v. Sullivan, 942

F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1991). It is not our task to make an independent

evaluation of the facts or to reverse the ALJ's holding merely because the

record contains evidence to contradict his findings. Instead, we must

examine the evidence in the record which supports the ALJ's decision as

well as that which detracts from it. See Turley v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 524,

528 (8th Cir. 1991). We find, on balance, that the ALJ's decision is

supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 

 

Opinions of a claimant's treating physician are ordinarily entitled

to be given great weight. Chamberlain v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 1489, 1494 (8th

Cir. 1995); Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing

Ward v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1986)). However, such

opinions are not conclusive and "must be supported by medically acceptable

clinical or diagnostic data." Matthews, 879 F.2d at 424. This record

contains no such support. Over two years had elapsed between the treating

physician's last examination of the claimant and the physician's opinion

that the claimant was disabled. Furthermore, the claimant's daily

activities, including household chores, militate against a finding of

disability. (Admin. Trans. at 21.) On these facts, the ALJ properly

discounted the testimony of Cady's treating physician.

Cady also alleges it was error for the ALJ to discount her testimony

regarding her personal limitations. As Cady raises this argument for the

first time on appeal, we need not consider it. Ownbey v. Shalala, 5 F.3d

342, 345 (8th Cir. 1993) (argument raised for first time on appeal need not

be considered unless failure to do so would result in "manifest

injustice"). In any event, the 
-3-

conflicting evidence regarding her daily activities and alleged limitations

supports the ALJ's decision. 

The ALJ expressly found that Cady's physical limitations did not

prevent her from performing her past relevant work as a secretary. (Admin.

Trans. at 24.) Even had Cady been unable to return to her prior relevant

work, the ALJ concluded that Cady possessed skills easily transferable to

other sedentary positions. The vocational expert also testified to that

effect. Consequently, the ALJ did not err in finding Cady was not disabled

within the meaning of the Act. 

Because the district court's decision affirming the administration's

denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the record as

a whole, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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