The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman, United States Circuit Judge 1

for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

___________

No. 96-1250

___________

Louis Wright, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern 

* District of Iowa.

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner *

of the Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 19, 1996

 Filed: February 6, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, FRIEDMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Louis Wright appeals on behalf of his deceased wife, Betty. He

challenges the denial of Social Security disability benefits to her. We

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Betty Wright was born in 1927 and had previous work experience as an

appointment clerk and receptionist. She filed an application for benefits

on November 15, 1990, alleging that she had become disabled in 1978 because

of heart problems and diabetes. Betty Wright's insured status expired on

June 30, 1982. Her application was denied initially and on

reconsideration. She then requested a
-2-

hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found, after a

hearing, that Betty Wright retained the residual functional capacity to

perform her past relevant work at the time her insured status expired and

thus was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act. The

Appeals Council affirmed the decision, as did the district court.

The medical evidence shows that Betty Wright was hospitalized in 1972

for poorly-controlled diabetes. She was again hospitalized in 1978 for an

acute myocardial infarction. She was discharged with medication. She was

examined for follow-ups in 1979 and at that time reported that she was

doing well and was planning a trip to Georgia. She received sporadic

medical treatment for various complaints from 1979 to 1982. In 1983,

Wright was hospitalized for chest pain. The pain was relieved with

Nitroglycerin and she was discharged in good condition. Later in 1983, she

was treated at the University of Iowa for chest pain which, after extensive

testing, was diagnosed as musculoskeletal in origin. She was seen at

various times in 1990 for treatment of diabetes and coronary artery

disease. Medical records after 1990 show numerous serious medical

conditions relating to diabetes mellitus and coronary disease.

Betty Wright testified at the hearing. She stated that after her

heart attack in 1978, she was unable to lift anything heavier than a spoon

and could only care for her own needs. She did light housework, meal

preparation, driving and grocery shopping. Her husband testified that his

wife's condition had progressively worsened over the years since her heart

attack in 1978.

In a letter dated March 20, 1991, Betty Wright's treating physician,

Dr. Swearingen, stated that he had treated her from 1978 until 1989 and

that "during that period of time her persistent angina pectoris and

congestive heart failure, along with her poorly controlled diabetes

mellitus, precluded her from active employment
-3-

and [she] would have, in my view, been disabled due to these conditions."

II. DISCUSSION

Betty Wright's disability insured status expired on June 30, 1982,

so the issue is whether she was disabled before that date. An individual's

medical condition on the date he or she was last insured is the only

consideration when an individual is no longer insured for Title II

disability purposes. See, e.g., Bastian v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1278, 1280

(8th Cir. 1983). If that individual's condition subsequently deteriorates,

that deterioration cannot be considered. 

The decision of the Secretary must be upheld if substantial evidence

in the record as a whole supports the conclusion that Betty Wright was not

disabled. Baker v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 955 F.2d 552, 554

(8th Cir. 1992). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but

enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the

Secretary's conclusion. Onstead v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir.

1992). Therefore, if it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions

from the evidence and one represents the Secretary's position, we must

affirm. Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992). 

Wright asserts that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to Betty

Wright's treating physician's opinion. The medical reports of a treating

physician are ordinarily entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a

consulting physician. Ward v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1986)

(per curiam). However, treating physicians' opinions are not conclusive

in determining disability and must be supported by medically acceptable

clinical or diagnostic data. Id. A treating physician's opinion may be
-4-

discounted, for example, when there is no testing to support it. Woolf v.

Shalala, 3 F.3d 1210, 1213-14 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Here, the medical evidence, including Dr. Swearingen's own records,

shows that Betty Wright was hospitalized for a myocardial infarction in

December 1978. She was then seen for six follow-up visits in 1979. These

visits were uneventful and Dr. Swearingen noted that Wright was doing well

with no pain. Her appointments in 1980, 1981 and 1982 were for various

minor complaints and prescription refills. Dr. Swearingen's opinion is

nothing more than a catalog of Wright's illnesses and a conclusory

statement that she is disabled. Dr. Swearingen's treatment of Wright

spanned more than twelve years, yet he points to no specific time when her

progressive conditions reached the point of disability. The medical

evidence simply does not show any disabling condition before June 30, 1982.

We thus find that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Swearingen's opinion.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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