1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3294

___________

Irene Barnett, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, *

* 

Appellee. *

 ___________

Submitted: March 10, 2004

Filed: April 1, 2004 

___________

Before RILEY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,1

 District Judge.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Irene Barnett (Barnett) applied for disability benefits with the Social Security

Administration, claiming debilitating right wrist pain and hand problems. An

administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Barnett’s request for benefits. The Social
2

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

2

Security Appeals Council (Appeals Council), and the district court2

 affirmed the

ALJ’s decision. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Barnett, a high-school educated thirty-eight year old, alleges she has been

disabled since April 1, 1995, due to problems with her right wrist and hand. Before

her alleged disability, Barnett worked as a housekeeper, cashier, and assembly line

worker.

In 1992, Dr. James Russell treated Barnett for possible fractures in her right

and left wrists. For nearly eight years, Barnett did not complain to a doctor about

wrist problems or pain. In May 2000, Dr. Russell treated Barnett for right and left

wrist pain attributed to her 1992 wrist injuries, prescribing drugs and heat treatment.

In November 2000, Barnett complained to Dr. Russell about left wrist pain and a

jammed left little finger. Dr. Russell did not observe anything wrong with the wrist,

and splinted Barnett’s finger and prescribed drugs. In March 2001, Dr. Jason Brandt

evaluated Barnett and observed right wrist swelling, some deformity, tenderness, and

loss of strength, but noted her elbow and shoulder were normal. Seven months later,

Dr. Brandt determined Barnett had both degenerative wrist disease and carpal tunnel

syndrome in her right wrist. To resolve these problems, Dr. Brandt prescribed drugs

and suggested wrist fusion as a possible treatment. Barnett repeatedly missed followup doctor appointments during the time she complained about problems with her hand

and wrist. Additionally, since incurring the allegedly debilitating injuries, Barnett

complained about wrist pain only six times during numerous doctor visits.
3

On April 26, 2000, Barnett filed for Social Security benefits, requesting an

evidentiary hearing to evaluate her eligibility. On her Disability Supplemental

Interview Outline (Disability Outline), Barnett indicated the tasks she continued to

perform since her disability, including personal hygiene and most household tasks.

However, during the evidentiary hearing, Barnett testified she could not manipulate

her fingers or use her right wrist.

Following the five-step procedure outlined in the Social Security regulations,

the ALJ determined Barnett was not entitled to disability benefits. Concluding

Barnett’s testimony regarding her impairment was not entirely credible, the ALJ

found Barnett could (1) carry or lift twenty pounds occasionally, and ten pounds

frequently; (2) sit, walk, and stand for the duration of a normal workday; and (3) pull

and push without limitation. Because Barnett’s past relevant work as a housekeeper

or assembly line worker was not precluded by these limitations, the ALJ determined

Barnett was not entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The

Appeals Council affirmed, and the district court concluded substantial evidence

supported the ALJ’s decision. Barnett appeals the district court’s conclusion that

substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s finding Barnett could perform her

past occupations as a housekeeper or an assembly line worker.

II. DISCUSSION

“We review the Commissioner’s decision to deny Social Security benefits to

determine if the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Patrick v. Barnhart, 323 F.3d 592, 595 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “Substantial

evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might

accept it as adequate to support a decision.” Id. (citation omitted). “In undertaking

this analysis, our court ‘should neither consider a claim de novo, nor abdicate its

function to carefully analyze the entire record.’” Id. (citation omitted). “[B]efore we

can reverse we must find that it would not be possible for any reasonable fact-finder
3

To the extent Barnett argues the ALJ erred because Barnett cannot perform

specific duties required in her prior employment, we reject Barnett’s contentions. As

this court has noted, the ALJ may determine a claimant can perform the claimant’s

past occupation based on “[t]he functional demands and job duties of the occupation

as generally required by employers throughout the national economy.” Evans v.

Shalala, 21 F.3d 832, 833-34 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting S.S.R. 82-61, 1975

Soc.Sec.Rep. 836, 838 (West 1983)). Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2) (2003).

4

to come to the conclusion reached by the [ALJ].” Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, No.

02-3692, 2004 WL 307451, at *2 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 2004).

The thrust of Barnett’s attack against the ALJ’s determination rests on Dr.

Brandt’s physical examinations. Dr. Brandt’s examination notes do not tip the

disability scale in Barnett’s favor. Dr. Brandt’s physical exams revealed minimal

motion of the right hand or wrist, painful motion, decreased sensation and strength,

and positive Tinel’s and Phalen’s signs. Dr. Brandt also recommended Barnett be

evaluated for possible wrist fusion as a “salvage procedure.” Notwithstanding Dr.

Brandt’s findings and possible treatment, Dr. Brandt noted Barnett had good

sensation, nerve function, and motor function. Dr. Brandt also did not limit the work

Barnett could perform and did not opine Barnett’s impairments impacted her ability

to perform her past occupations. Similarly, Dr. Russell did not impose any limitations

or offer an opinion on Barnett’s ability to perform her past occupations. Without

such information, we cannot conclude the ALJ erred in its finding, especially in light

of other evidence in the record.3

On her Disability Outline, Barnett indicated she could bathe and dress without

assistance, do laundry, wash dishes, vacuum and sweep, take out the trash, and shop

for groceries and clothes. Barnett also indicated she could pay bills and count

change. Further, Barnett noted she walked for exercise and attended church. The

activities Barnett listed support the ALJ’s conclusion Barnett failed to show she could

not perform the job of a housekeeper or an assembly line worker. Indeed, the
5

activities Barnett listed on the Disability Outline encompass many of the tasks one

would perform in housekeeping or assembly line work. A person would lift ten

pounds or less, stand for a period of time, sit for a period of time, and push and pull

while engaging in these common household tasks. Thus, each task the ALJ found

Barnett could manage–lifting ten pounds frequently, sitting and standing during the

workday, and pushing or pulling–are supported by substantial evidence.

III. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________