1

The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western 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). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2612

___________

Cheryl L. Mearing, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 6, 2004

Filed: February 12, 2004 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cheryl L. Mearing appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Having carefully

reviewed the record, see Wheeler v. Apfel, 224 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2000)

(standard of review), we affirm.
-2-

In her June 1999 applications and related documents, Ms. Mearing alleged

disability since May 1999 from learning disabilities, depression, headaches, and

menstrual problems. Ms. Mearing revised her onset date to June 2000 at the

May 2001 hearing, where a vocational expert (VE) testified in response to a

hypothetical the administrative law judge (ALJ) posed. After the ALJ considered the

findings of a posthearing consultative examination of Ms. Mearing by a psychiatrist,

the ALJ determined that Ms. Mearing’s dysthmic and anxiety disorders, and her

borderline intellectual functioning, were severe impairments but not of listing-level

severity, either alone or combined; and that she could perform her past relevant work

(PRW).

Ms. Mearing contends the ALJ erred by not considering her obesity. We

disagree. The obesity listing was deleted in 1999, and in any event, Ms. Mearing

would not have met its requirements, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 9.09,

Table II (1998); currently, obesity is relevant primarily in the musculoskeletal,

cardiovascular, respiratory, and mental disorders listings, see Social Security Ruling

(SSR) 02-01p, 2000 WL 628049, at *1 (SSA, Sept. 12, 2002), and Ms. Mearing never

sought care for respiratory, cardiovascular, or musculoskeletal problems, and her

depression was reportedly well controlled by medication; and most important, she did

not claim obesity as a basis for disability before the ALJ or the Appeals Council, nor

did she testify about or report weight-related work limitations, cf. Mitchell v. Shalala,

48 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 1995) (in declining to consider new evidence of

claimant’s reading problems, it was significant that claimant did not raise illiteracy

as disabling factor in application for benefits or at hearing). 

As to Ms. Mearing’s headaches, the ALJ did not err in finding them not severe.

Ms. Mearing testified that they occurred primarily during her menses and that her

physician had recommended only over-the-counter medications to treat them. See

Haynes v. Shalala, 26 F.3d 812, 814 (8th Cir. 1994) (lack of strong pain medication

is inconsistent with disabling pain). There is, in fact, no medical evidence indicating
-3-

she sought treatment for them, see Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir.

1995) (failure to seek treatment may be inconsistent with disability), or was denied

treatment for lack of funds, cf. Riggins v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 689, 693 (8th Cir. 1999)

(alleged pain and disability are inconsistent with failure to seek low-cost or no-cost

medical treatment).

We also reject Ms. Mearing’s assertion that the ALJ erred in failing sufficiently

to explain his determination that she and her mother were not credible. The ALJ gave

multiple valid reasons for finding Ms. Mearing’s alleged limitations not entirely

credible, see Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2001) (deference to ALJ is

appropriate when he explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing

so), and although he did not specifically address the credibility of Ms. Mearing’s

mother, the reasons the ALJ gave for discrediting Ms. Mearing would have served as

bases for discrediting her mother, see Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir.

2000) (ALJ’s failure to give specific reasons for disregarding testimony of claimant’s

husband was inconsequential, as same reasons ALJ gave to discredit claimant could

serve as basis for discrediting husband).

Ms. Mearing challenges the ALJ’s determination that she could do her PRW,

in part, because the record showed that she held a number of short-term jobs.

However, the record also showed that some of the reasons she gave for leaving those

jobs were unrelated to her allegedly disabling conditions; and as the ALJ noted, she

held some jobs for a significant period of time despite her borderline intelligence and

periods of depression. See Naber v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 186, 189 (8th Cir. 1994)

(condition that is not disabling during years of work and has not worsened cannot

serve as basis for proving present disability).

Ms. Mearing’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________