### The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United State s 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 * Shirley S. Chater, * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioner of the Social * Security Administration, * * Appellee.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.

Le ona Cady appeals the district court's affirmance of the Socia l 1 Security Administration's denial of benefits. Because we find the distric t court's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, we affirm.
Cady filed for supplemental social s ecurity benefits under Title XVI in April 1991. Those benefits were denied initially in July 1991 and afte r 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 th e district court.

### -2- Cady argues that the ALJ erred by improperly discounting both th e opinion of her treati ng physician and her own testimony and in failing to find h er disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. O n 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 independen t evaluation of the facts or to reverse the ALJ's holding merely because the record contains evidence to contradict his findings. Instead, we mus t examine the evidence in the record which supports the ALJ's decision a s 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 i s 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. Shalal a , 47 F.3d 1489, 1494 (8th Cir. 1995); Matthews v. Bowen , 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Ward v. H eckler , 786 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1986)). However, suc h opinions are not conclusive and "must be support ed by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data." Matthews , 879 F.2d at 424. This recor d contains no such support. Over two years had el apsed between the treating physician's last examination of the claimant and the physician's opinion that t he claimant was disabled. Furthermore, the claimant's dail y activit ies, including household chores, militate against a finding o f dis ability. (Admin. Trans. at 21.) On these facts, the ALJ properl y discounted the testimony of Cady's treating physician.
Cady also alleges it was error for the ALJ to discount her tes timony regarding her persona l 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 no t be consid ered unless failure to do so would result in "manifes t injustice"). In any event, the

### -3-

conflicting evidence regarding her daily activities and alleged limitation s supports the ALJ's decision.

The ALJ expressly found that Cady's physical limitations did no t 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 conclud ed 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 disable d within the meaning of the Act.

Because the district court's decisio n 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.