# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 20 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Deb or ah Mae Tod d- Sm it h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi ch ael J. As tru e, So ci al Secu rit y Co m m is si on er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - F t. Sm it h

__ __ __ __ __ __
Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 6, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

4, 2 01 3 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Deb or ah Tod d- Sm it h ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r affi rm in g th e de ni al of

su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e (SSI ). Tod d- Sm it h pr ot ect iv el y fil ed fo r SSI be ne fit s in Ja nu ary 20 07
, al le gi ng di sa bi li ty si nc e Ja nu ary 19 97 ba se d on pr ob le m s with he r
sp in e, ba ck
, le gs , kn ees , an d to e

. F o l l o win g a Nov em be r 20 08 he ari ng , an ad mi ni st rat iv e la w jud ge (ALJ) fo un d th at (1 ) Tod d- Sm it h ha d de ge ne rat iv e di scdi se as e of th e l u mb a r s pi ne , wh ic h was se ve re, bu t sh e di d no t ha ve an im pa irment

or co m bi na ti on of im

pa irments th at m et or eq ua le d a li st ed im pa irment; (2 ) he r al le ga ti on s reg ard in g th e li m it in g effe ct s of he r sym pt om s were no t fu ll y cred ib le ; (3 ) sh e ha d th e res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (RFC ) to pe rfo rm th e ex ert io na l de m an ds of li gh t wor k wit h s om e ad di ti on al li m it at io ns ; an d (4 ) sh e ha d no pa st rel ev an t wor k, bu t ba se d on th e te st im on y of th e vo cat io na l ex pe rt (VE), sh e co ul d pe rfo rm th e job s of m ach in e te nd er, as se m

bl er, an d po ul try wor ke r, whi ch ex is t in si gn ifi can t nu m be rs in th e lo ca l a n d na ti on al eco no m y

. The App eal s Co un ci l de ni ed rev ie w, an d th e di st ric t co ur t aff

i r med. Upo n care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd an d Tod d- Sm it h’s
arg um en ts fo r rev ers al
, se e Perk in s v. Ast ru e, 64 8 F

. 3d 89 2, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), we co nc lu de th at cert ai n as pe ct s of th e ALJ’s de ci si on were no t

su pp or te d b y

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

Tod d- Sm it h co nt en ds th at th e ALJ erre d in fin di ng he r no t cred ib le reg ard in g th e d eg ree o f he r pa in an d fu nc ti on al li m it at io ns

. Alt ho ug h th e ALJ is no t re qu ire d

to di sc us s each cred ib il it y fact or , se e Halv ers on v. Ast ru e, 60 0 F.3 d 92 2, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), in th is cas e th e ALJ di d no t gi ve an y sp eci fic reas on s fo r di sc ou nt in g Tod dSm it h’s cr ed ib il it y , cf. McC oy v. Astrue , 64 8 F.3d 60 5, 61 4 (8t h Cir. 2 01 1) (if ALJ

ex pl ic it ly di sc red it s cl ai m an t an d gi ve s go od reas on s fo r do in g so , th is co ur t no rm al ly de fers to ALJ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n)

. To th e ex te nt th e ALJ’s fin di ng was ba se d

on th e be li ef th at Tod d- Sm it h’s co m pl ai nt s were no t fu ll y su pp or te d by th e ob jecti ve

m ed ic al ev id en ce, th e la ck of ob jecti ve ev id en ce is on ly on e fa ct or to co ns id er in

ev al uatin g cr ed ib il it y , se e Cu rran -Kic ks ey v. Barn ha rt, 31 5 F.3 d 96 4, 96 8- 69 (8 th Cir

. 20 03 ), an d in an y ev en t Tod d- Sm it h’s m ed ic al reco rd s sh ow a lo ng hi st or y of ba ck

su rg eri es , ep id ur al s t e r oi d in jecti on s, an d si gn ifi can t pa in m ed ic at io n. Mo reo ve r, Tod d- Sm it h di d no t rep res en t th at sh e pa r t i ci pa te d in an y da il y act iv it ie s th at were in co ns is te nt wit h hertes ti m on y ab ou t h er l im it at io ns

. See Ren st ro m v. Astrue , 68 0 F.3 d 10 57 , 10 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (cl ai m an t’s rep or t of da il y act iv it ie s is fact or to

co ns id er i n a ss es si ng cred ib il it y ).

-2

-W e al so fin d th at th e ALJ’s RFC as se ss m en t an d hypo th et ic al to th e VE di d no t

co nt ai n m an y of th e m en ta l li m it at io ns se t ou t by th e do ct or s- -ev en th e le ss res tri ct iv e li m it at io ns se t ou t by th e co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in ers --an d th us th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n

was un su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. See Tuc ke r v. Barn ha rt, 36 3 F.3 d 78 1, 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (VE te st im on y co ns ti tu te s su bs ta nt ia l e v i d e n ce on ly whe n ba se d on pr op er hypo t h e t i c a l whi ch in cl ud es al l im pa irments su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in

reco rd ). Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-