### 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 Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of the Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED] Administration, * * Appellee.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. H e challenges the denial of Social Security disability benefits to her. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
Betty Wright was born in 1927 and ha d previous work experience as an appointment clerk and receptionist. She filed a n application for benefits
on November 15, 1990, alleging that she had become disabled in 1978 becaus e of heart problems and diabetes. Betty Wright's insured status expired on June 30 , 1982. Her application was denied initially and o n reconsideration. She then requested a

### -2-

hearing before an adm inistrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found, after a hearin g, that Betty Wright retained the residual functional capacity t o perform her past rele vant work at the time her insured status expired and thus was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act. Th e Appeals Council affirmed the decision, as did the district court.
The medical evidence shows that Betty Wright was hospitalized i n 1972 for poorly-controlled diabetes. She was again h ospitalized 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 wa s doi ng well and was planning a trip to Georgia. She received sporadi c medical tr eatment for various complaints from 1979 to 1982. In 1983 , Wright wa s hospitalized for chest pain. The pain was relieved wit h Nitroglycerin and she was discharged in good condition. Later in 1983, sh e was treated at the University of Iowa for chest pain which, after extensiv e testing, w as diagnosed as musculoskeletal in origin. She was seen a t various times in 1990 for treatment of diabetes and coronary arter y diseas e. Medical records after 1990 show numerous serious medica l conditions relating to diabetes mellitus and coronary disease.
Betty Wright testified at the hearing. She stated that after he r heart attack in 1978, she was unable to lift any thing heavier than a spoon and could only care for her own needs. She did light housework, mea l 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, Be tty Wright's treating physician, Dr. Swear ingen, stated that he had treated her from 1978 until 1989 an d that "during that period of time her persistent angina pectoris an d conge stive heart failure, along with her poorly controlled diabete s 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 co ndition on the date he or she was last insured is the onl y consider ation when an individual is no longer insured for Title I I disability purposes. See , e.g. , Bastian v. Schw eiker , 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 b e 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, 55 4 (8th Cir. 1992). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance bu t enough th at a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support th e Secretary's conclusio n. Onstead v. Sullivan , 962 F.2d 803, 804 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if it is possible to draw two inconsistent position s fromthe evidence and one represents the Secretary's position, we mus t affirm. Robinson v. Sullivan , 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992).
Wright asserts that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to Bett y Wright's treating phy sician's opinion. The medical reports of a treating physician are ordinar ily 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 det ermining disability and must be supported by medically acceptabl e clinical or diagnostic data. Id. A treating physician's opinion may be

### -4-

discounted, for example, when there is no testin g 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, sho ws that Betty Wright was hospitalized for a myocardial infarction i n 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 variou s minor complaints and prescription refills. Dr. Swearingen's opinion i s nothing more than a catalog of Wright's illnesses and a conclusor y stateme nt that she is disabled. Dr. Swearingen's treatment of Wrigh t spanned more than twelve years, yet he points to no specific time when her progre ssive conditions reached the point of disability. The medica l 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.