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 Title XVI

of the Social Security Act and for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB)

under Title II of the Act, alleging disability due to back and lung

problems. Misner alleged that he became disabled as of August 2, 1988, and

he met the disability insured status requirements through December 31,

1992, for purposes of his DIB
2

application. The Social Security Administration initially denied both

applications. 

Misner requested and obtained a hearing 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 DIB

because his disability did not arise until after his insured status had

expired in December of 1992. Specifically, the ALJ found that Misner has

severe impairments of degenerative arthritis with complaints of low back

pain, peptic ulcer disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a

history of anxiety and depression, and a history of alcohol abuse. The ALJ

further found that while these impairments in combination prevent him from

returning to his past relevant work, they do not meet or equal a listed

impairment. 

For purposes of the DIB application, the ALJ found that from the

alleged date of disability (August 1988) through the expiration of Misner's

insured status (December 1992), Misner retained the residual functional

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 hour 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 last

insured, Misner could perform some light jobs identified by the VE at the

hearing. 

For purposes of the SSI application, the ALJ found that Misner

currently retains the residual functional capacity to carry up to 20 pounds

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 repetitive

bending, stooping, squatting, and climbing. Additionally, Misner must now

avoid working with his arms overhead. Misner's age became the deciding

factor on his SSI application. 
3

The ALJ determined that before Misner reached the age of 55 in March of

1994, he was capable of performing the light jobs identified by the VE.

After that point, the regulations consider Misner to be a person

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. 

 Misner sought judicial review of both the denial of his claim for

DIB and the denial of SSI benefits prior to March 1, 1994. He argued that

the ALJ did not properly apply Social Security Ruling 88-13 (superseded),

which outlined the framework for evaluating pain and other symptoms.

Additionally, he argued that the ALJ did not properly include all of

Misner's relevant limitations in the hypothetical question posed to the

vocational expert. The district court concluded that the ALJ properly

evaluated Misner's subjective complaints and properly reworded the

hypothetical question posed to the VE after Misner's attorney objected to

the language of the question. Accordingly, the district court determined

that substantial evidence on the whole record exists to support the

decision of the Commissioner.

On appeal, Misner raises one argument. He contends that the

testimony of the VE is inconsistent with Social Security Ruling 83-12

(stating that unskilled jobs ordinarily do not allow for alternating

positions at will between standing and sitting). Specifically, Misner

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 otherwise

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 Misner could perform certain light jobs prior to March

1, 1994, is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. The VE

acknowledged that a person with Misner's residual functional capacity would

not be capable of performing all jobs categorized as light work but would

be capable of performing some light jobs, including office helper and

inserting machine operator. The VE further specifically testified that

these jobs allow for alternating positions, which is consistent with

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.