### The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. _____________ No. 95-3216

_____________ Gerald Misner, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security, * * Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: March 14, 1996 Filed: April 2, 1996

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ HANSEN, Circuit Judge. Gerald Misner appeals the judgment of the district court, affirming 1 the Commissioner's decision that Misner was not entitled to benefits prior to March 1, 1994. We affirm.
Misner applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Tit le XVI of the Social Security Act and for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB ) under Tit le II of the Act, alleging disability due to back and lun g problems. Misner alleged that he became disabled as of August 2, 1988, an d he met the disability insured status requirements through December 31 , 1992, for purposes of his DIB

### 2

appl ication. The Social Security Administration initially denied bot h applications.
Misner requested and obtained a hear ing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined that Misner was disabled and entitled to SSI benefits as of March 1, 1994, but that he was not entitled to DI B because his disability did not arise until after his insured status ha d expired in December o f 1992. Specifically, the ALJ found that Misner has
severe impairments of degenerative arthritis with complaints of low back pa in, peptic ulcer disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a history of anxiety and depression, and a history of alcohol abuse. The AL J further found that while these impairments in co mbination prevent him from returni ng to his past relevant work, they do not meet or equal a liste d impairment.

For pu rposes of the DIB application, the ALJ found that from th e alleged date of disability (August 1988) through the expiration of Misner' s insured status (December 1992), Misner retained the residual functiona l capacity to lift and carry up to 25 pounds at a time and 10 to 15 pounds repeatedly, he could stand and sit each for 1/2 hour at a time and walk 1/ 2 to 1 hou r at a time, and he could not have endured repetitive bending , stooping, squatting, or crawling. Based on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that throughout the period when he was las t insured, Misner couldperform some light jobs identified by the VE at the hearing.

For pu rposes of the SSI application, the ALJ found that Misne r currently retains the residual functional capacity to carry up to 20 pound s at a time and 10 pounds repeatedly, he can stand 1/2 to 1 hour at a time and sit 3/4 to 1 hour at a time, and he must still avoid repetitiv e bending, stooping, squatting, and climbing. Add itionally, Misner must now avoid working with his arms overhead. Misner's age became the decidin g factor on his SSI application.

### 3

The ALJ determined that before Misner reached the age of 55 in March o f 1994, he was capable of performing the light jobs identified by the VE
. Af ter that point, the regulations consider Misner to be a perso n approaching advanced age, and the grid, 20 C.F.R . pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 2, tbl. 2, rule 202.06, dictates a finding of disability. Thus, the ALJ awarded SSI benefits beginning on March 1, 1994.
Misne r sought judicial review of both the denial of his claim fo r DIB and the denial of SSI benefits prior to Marc h 1, 1994. He argued that the ALJ did not prope rly apply Social Security Ruling 88-13 (superseded), which outlined the framework for evaluating pain and other symptoms
. Addi tionally, he argued that the ALJ did not properly include all o f Misner 's relevant limitations in the hypothetical question posed to th e vocational expert. The district court concluded that the ALJ properl y evaluated Misner's subjective complaints and properly reworded th e hypothetical questionposed to the VE after Misner's attorney objected to the language of the q uestion. Accordingly, the district court determined that substantial evidence on the whole record exists to support th e decision of the Commissioner.

On appeal, Misner raises one argument. He contends that th e testimo ny of the VE is inconsistent with Social Security Ruling 83-1 2 (stati ng that unskilled jobs ordinarily do not allow for alternatin g positi ons at will between standing and sitting). Specifically, Misne r contends that not all of the unskilled light jobs listed by the VE would allow him to alternate positions as he must.
Misner did not raise this argument before the district court
. Because Misner raises this argument for the first time on appeal, we need not consider it unless he can show that a manifest injustice will otherwis e result. Novotny v. Chater , 72 F.3d 669,

### 4

670 (8th Cir. 1995); Ownbey v. Shalala , 5 F.3d 342, 345 (8th Cir. 1993). Misner has made no such showing.

In any event, our review of the record convinces us that the ALJ' s determination that Mi sner could perform certain light jobs prior to March 1, 1994, is supported by substantial evidence onthe whole record. The VE acknowledged that a person with Misner's residual functional capacity woul d not be capable of per forming all jobs categorized as light work but would be capa ble of performing some light jobs, including office helper an d insert ing machine operator. The VE further specifically testified tha t these jobs allow for alternating positions, which is consistent wit h Misner's limitations. See Carlson v. Chater , 74 F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir. 1996) (rejecting an identical argument). Thus, Misner's argument fails.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.

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