*

The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United States Circuit

Judge for the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge

for the Western District of Missouri.

 

No. 95-2692

 

JESSE W. ADAMS, *

 *

Plaintiff-Appellant, * On Appeal From the United

 * States District Court for

v. * the Western District of

 * Missouri.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, *

Commissioner of the Social *

Security Administration, * [NOT TO BE PUBLISHED]

 *

Defendant-Appellee. *

 

Submitted: January 12, 1996

 Filed: February 26, 1996 

Before LOKEN, REAVLEY* and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Adams appeals a district court1 summary judgment which

affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to

deny his application for social security disability benefits. We

affirm.

Our review is limited to determining whether the

Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in
-2-

the record as a whole. Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 486 (8th

Cir. 1995). The findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) 

are supported by substantial evidence. Among other evidence, the

ALJ considered live testimony from Adams, his sister, and a

vocational expert, as well as reports from physicians.

Adams, 45 at the time of the 1993 hearing, has no vocational

training or experience and an eighth-grade education. He

previously worked as a garbage collector. The parties do not

dispute the ALJ’s findings that Adams suffers from numerous

medical impairments, including obstructive lung disease,

hypertension, gout and obesity. The ALJ credited the opinion of

an examining physician, Dr. Talpers, that Adams was capable of

minimal exertional activities, and could work in a position

requiring light lifting, sitting and standing. Talpers found

that Adams suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

but that his respiration was only "mildly labored," his cardiac

rhythm was regular, and there was no chest wall tenderness. He

found that Adams could stand or walk for four to six hours during

an eight-hour day or two hours without interruption, and could

lift and carry 20 pounds for one-third of an eight-hour day. 

Based on the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ

concluded that unskilled, sedentary positions are available in

the economy that Adams could hold and that he therefore was not

disabled. 

Adams argues that the ALJ did not give due credit to the

reports of his treating physicians and other documents. Although

these records support Adams’ claim, we cannot say that our review

of the record as a whole compels us to conclude that the ALJ’s

findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. One treating

physician, Dr. Cantrell, wrote in one report that Adams is

"unable to do any work." He checked a box on the printed form

stating that the patient has "a mental and/or physical disability

which prevents him from engaging in full time employment on a
-3-

regular basis at a normal wage rate for that employment for which

his age, training, experience or education will fit him." There

is no indication on this document of the diagnostic tests

performed or questions asked of the patient. Further, the

unqualified statements in this report are inconsistent with a

later letter written by Cantrell, stating that Adams "suffers

from a multitude of problems which would greatly hinder his

ability to responsibly to carry [sic] on full time employment at

this time." Another treating physician, Dr. Abanishe, states in

a letter that Adams "is unable to perform any substantial gainful

activity," but again, this statement is conclusory and is not

supported by any laboratory or diagnostic testing. A third

treating physician, Dr. Bacon, stated in a report that Adams "is

unable to perform any moderately strenuous activity for a

sustained period of time including walking." This statement,

however, is not inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding and the

vocational expert’s testimony that Adams could perform jobs that

were primarily sedentary. Adams also relies on a letter from a

medical center where he received treatment, enclosing a printout

of his medications and stating that "[i]t is difficult to

comprehend that a person would require such medications and not

be considered disabled." This letter, however, is authored by a

social worker rather than a physician, is based solely on the

quantity of medications Adams had received, and offers no

indication that the author is familiar with the standards for

determining eligibility for social security disability benefits. 

Adams also offered a 1992 ruling of the Missouri State Division

of Family Services finding him unemployable and permanently and

totally disabled. The ALJ was not bound by this ruling. 

Adams complains that the district court did not properly

credit his sister’s testimony and his own testimony regarding his

subjective complaints. They testified that Adams had severe

breathing problems, had trouble walking and lifting, did not

perform household chores, and needed to lie down because of
-4-

fatigue. Adams also complained of dizzy spells and difficulty

getting a good night’s sleep. He claimed that he was unable to

engage in any social activities or recreational activities. He

used to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, but was down to

about half a pack. The ALJ found this testimony lacking in

credibility, in part because of "the opinions of treating and

examining physicians of record that the claimant would experience

a significant improvement in his pulmonary condition if he

stopped smoking and the lack of evidence that the claimant

followed these recommendations," and because his chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease is exacerbated by obesity and

continued tobacco use. The ALJ also discredited Adams’ testimony

because it was inconsistent with the report of Dr. Talpers. 

Talpers, after conducting a pulmonary function test, concluded

that Adams was capable of light work activity.

The ALJ was entitled in these circumstances to discount the

subjective complaints of the claimant. It is true that an ALJ

"may not disregard a claimant’s subjective complaints solely

because the objective medical evidence does not fully support

them." Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). 

However, "subjective complaints may be discounted if there are

inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole." Id. The lack of

objective medical evidence in support of the claimant’s

testimony, and inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole, are

factors the ALJ may consider in weighing the credibility of the

claimant’s subjective complaints. Cruse v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1183,

1186 (8th Cir. 1989). Further, we believe that the ALJ was

entitled to discount the subjective complaints due to Adams’

failure to lose weight and stop smoking. See Nelson v. Sullivan,

966 F.2d 363, 367 (8th Cir. 1992); Weber v. Harris, 640 F.2d 176,

178 (8th Cir. 1981).

Adams complains that the ALJ disregarded evidence that he

suffered from dizziness and staggered when he walked. The
-5-

vocational expert was asked about these problems, and testified

that she did not believe that these problems would affect Adams’

ability to perform the largely sedentary jobs that she believed

Adams was otherwise capable of performing.

In sum, we find that the evidence on which Adams relies is

not so compelling or consistent as to lead us to conclude that

the ALJ’s ruling is unsupported by substantial evidence based on

the record as a whole.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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