1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3239

___________

Gary M. Tucker, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2004

Filed: April 13, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Gary M. Tucker appeals from the district court’s1

 order affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of Tucker’s application for disability insurance and

supplemental security income benefits. Having reviewed the record to determine

whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence,

O’Donnell v. Barnhart, 318 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
-2-

I.

Tucker’s application for benefits claimed that he suffered a disability beginning

September 20, 2000, resulting from low back pain, leg pain and swelling, and

Meniere’s disease. The Social Security Administration denied his claim, as did the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) following a hearing. The ALJ found that Tucker’s

impairments were severe but did not meet or equal the criteria of any listed

impairment. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. The ALJ found that although

Tucker was unable to perform any of his past relevant work, he retained the residual

functional capacity (RFC) to lift and carry less than ten pounds, stand and walk ten

minutes at a time for up to an hour a day, and sit up to an hour at a time for a total of

seven hours a day, but could not perform a job that required him to climb, bend,

squat, kneel, crouch, or crawl. The ALJ concluded, based on Tucker’s RFC and the

testimony of the vocational expert, that Tucker retained the capacity to perform jobs

existing in significant numbers in the national and local economies and was therefore

not under a disability as defined by the Social Security Act. 

Tucker sought review of the ALJ’s determination by the Appeals Council. His

request was denied, so the ALJ’s determination stands as the final decision of the

Commissioner. Tucker filed suit in the district court, which held that the ALJ’s

decision was supported by substantial evidence. Tucker appeals, arguing that the ALJ

wrongly concluded that his subjective complaints of pain were not “totally credible”

and that he could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national and

local economies.

II.

We consider first whether the ALJ’s finding that Tucker’s subjective

complaints of pain were not totally credible is supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but is enough that a reasonable

person would believe it adequate to support the ALJ’s conclusion. Cox v. Apfel, 160

F.3d 1203, 1206-07 (8th Cir. 1998). In deciding whether the evidence is substantial,
-3-

we consider all evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s decision as well as all that

supports it. Warburton v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 1999).

In making a credibility determination regarding a claimant’s subjective

complaints of pain, the ALJ should consider all evidence related to those complaints

“including the claimant's prior work record, and observations by third parties and

treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as: (1) the claimant’s daily

activities; (2) the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and

aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; (5)

functional restrictions.” Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

The ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as the analytical

framework is recognized and considered. Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th

Cir. 1996). 

Tucker complained of severe impairments due to back and leg pain. However,

a number of diagnostic tools, including an MRI, myelogram, and post-myelogram CT,

showed relatively minor degenerative changes. Additionally, Tucker’s treating

physicians did not place any restrictions on him despite the alleged severity of the

pain. The medical expert similarly testified that Tucker should be medically able to

perform sedentary work that allowed for frequent postural changes and required only

seldom stair climbing or bending. This evidence caused the ALJ to question

Tucker’s credibility. Despite the ALJ’s concerns about Tucker’s credibility, he did

not entirely ignore Tucker’s complaints but instead balanced Tucker’s subjective

complaints against the objective medical evidence in arriving at an assessment of

Tucker’s RFC. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s credibility determination

is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

III.

We consider next Tucker’s contention that the ALJ improperly found that he

could perform jobs available in significant numbers in the economy. Our review of
-4-

this finding has two components. One consists of a medical inquiry: is there

substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination of Tucker’s RFC?

Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2002). The other is a

vocational inquiry: is there substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination

that jobs exist in significant numbers that Tucker could perform given his RFC?

Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294, 296 (8th Cir. 1996). 

The ALJ must assess a claimant’s RFC based on all relevant, credible evidence

in the record, “including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and

others, and an individual’s own description of his limitations.” McKinney v. Apfel,

228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ found that Tucker could lift and

carry less than ten pounds, stand and walk ten minutes at a time for up to an hour a

day, and sit up to an hour at a time for a total of seven hours a day, but could not

perform a job that required him to climb, bend, squat, kneel, crouch, or crawl.

Despite Tucker’s argument to the contrary, the ALJ’s RFC finding shows that due

consideration was given to all evidence in the record, including Tucker’s subjective

complaints of pain. In fact, the RFC determination reflects a finding of more

limitations than those found by one of Tucker’s own treating physicians, who opined

that Tucker could occasionally lift twenty-one to fifty pounds and frequently lift

eleven to twenty pounds. That physician, Dr. Carabetta, also believed that Tucker

was capable of bending, stooping, or crawling occasionally. Thus, we conclude that

the ALJ’s assessment of Tucker’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence. 

We turn, then, to the ALJ’s determination that jobs which Tucker’s RFC

enables him to perform exist in significant numbers in the economy. Testimony from

a vocational expert constitutes substantial evidence only when based on a properly

phrased hypothetical question. Cruze v. Chater, 85 F.3d 1320, 1323 (8th Cir. 1996).

The hypothetical must include all impairments that are supported by substantial

evidence in the record as a whole. Pickney, 96 F.3d at 296. Tucker argues that the

ALJ’s hypothetical was flawed because it did not include additional limitations
-5-

claimed by Tucker as a result of pain. Because the ALJ’s RFC determination is

supported by substantial evidence, however, he properly included in the hypothetical

only those impairments established by that evidence.

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________