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

for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

___________

No. 96-1780

___________

William Meeks, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Shirley S. Chater, *

Commissioner of the Social * [UNPUBLISHED]

Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 19, 1996

 Filed: February 6, 1997

___________

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

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Meeks appeals the denial of Social Security benefits. We

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Meeks is sixty-two years old and has a ninth-grade education. He has

previous work experience as a clothing salesman and as an auto accessory

salesman and manager. He also owned a flea market at one time. He was

last employed in 1989. His disability insured
 Meeks has since been awarded Supplemental Security Income

2

benefits, which do not require any disability insured status. He

has been awarded benefits as of June 30, 1995. In this appeal,

Meeks seeks SSI benefits from April 4, 1989.

-2-

status expired on December 31, 1992. He applied for disability benefits 2

in 1993, alleging that he became disabled on April 4, 1989, due to a

stroke. His application was denied both initially and on reconsideration.

He then requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The

ALJ found, after the hearing, that Meeks retains the residual functional

capacity to perform his past relevant work 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 Meeks suffered a stroke in 1989, but

apparently made a satisfactory recovery. Later medical examinations note

only a small, residual, left-sided deficit as a result of the stroke.

Meeks had surgery for a leaking aortic aneurysm in November 1992. He also

recovered from that surgery. In December 1993, Meeks was admitted to the

emergency room with chest pain. He suffered a heart attack in the

emergency room, but was resuscitated. He then underwent coronary bypass

surgery. Several months later he had a cardiovascular stress test. The

conclusions after the test were: "normal hemodynamic response to

exercise," "mildly diminished exercise capacity," "no significant

arrhythmias with exercise," and "negative ECG test for ischemia at a good

workload." 

Notes of a consultative exam at the time of the bypass surgery show

an "incisional hernia resulting from an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,"

but noted that it "has not caused the patient any problems." There is no

other later mention of the hernia in Meeks's medical records. Because of

his history of stroke, aneurysm and heart difficulties, Meeks's treating

physician, Dr. Sadler, restricted Meeks from bending, stooping, or lifting

more
-3-

than ten to fifteen pounds. Although the letter imposing those

restrictions is undated, it was received by the Social Security

Administration in January 1994. The record also shows that Meeks has a

hearing deficit--his hearing for speech is moderately impaired and his

speech discrimination is fair.

Meeks was also examined by a consulting physician, Dr. Ryan. Dr.

Ryan found that Meeks could occasionally lift fifty pounds, could

frequently lift twenty-five pounds, and could stand for six hours. Dr.

Ryan further found no communicative limitations.

At the hearing, Meeks testified that he stopped working in 1989 in

order to care for his wife who had cancer. He testified that he walks two

miles a day, drives a car and does his own grocery shopping. He stated he

has some pain from the hernia.

 

II. DISCUSSION 

Meeks's disability insured status expired on December 31, 1992, so

the issue is whether he 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 Meeks 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
-4-

one represents the Secretary's position, we must affirm. Robinson v.

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

Meeks asserts that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to his

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.

Here, the ALJ properly discounted the lifting restrictions imposed

by the treating physician. There was nothing in the medical records to

support such restrictions. The letter imposing the restrictions contains

only a listing of Meeks's illnesses, with no explanation why the

restrictions are necessary. We agree that the restrictions are conclusory.

Based on the factual circumstances of this case, we believe the ALJ did not

err in rejecting the unsupported statement of Meeks's treating physician.

The ALJ also properly evaluated Meeks's complaints of pain and

concluded that there was a sufficient basis on which to discount the

severity of his complaints and associated symptoms. This includes his

failure to seek treatment for his hernia, failure to obtain a hearing aid,

his daily activities, and his statement that he stopped working in 1989 to

care for his wife. Meeks suffered from serious illnesses that required

surgeries, but he recovered from those surgeries. Nothing in the record

shows that Meeks was totally disabled by the hernia or any of his illnesses

before his insured status expired on December 31, 1992.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm. 

 
-5-

A true copy.

Attest:

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