### 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 Shirley S. Chater, * Commissioner of the Social * [UNPUBLISHED] Security Administration, * * Appellee.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.
Willi amMeeks appeals the denial of Social Security benefits. W e 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 sal esman and manager. He also owned a flea market at one time. He wa s last employed in 1989. His disability insured

### Meeks has since been awarded Supplemental Security Incom e 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 exp ired on December 31, 1992. He applied for disability benefits 2 in 1993, a lleging that he became disabled on April 4, 1989, due to a stroke. His application was denied both initial ly and on reconsideration. He then requested a hearing before an administra tive 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 disab ilityas defined in the Social Security Act. The Appeals Counci l affirmed the decision, as did the district court.
The medical evidence shows that Meek s suffered a stroke in 1989, but apparently made a sat isfactory recovery. Later medical examinations note only a sma ll, 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 s urgery. In December 1993, Meeks was admitted to the emergency room with chest pain. He suffered a heart attack in th e emergency room, but was resuscitated. He then underwent coronary bypass surgery. Several months later he had a cardiovascular stress test. The conclu sions after the test were: "normal hemodynamic response t o exe rcise," "mildly diminished exercise capacity," "no significan t arrhythmias with exer cise," 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 abdomina l aortic aneurysm repair," but noted that it "ha s not caused the patient any problems." There is no other later mention o f 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 ben ding, stooping, or lifting more

### -3-

than ten to fifteen pounds. Although the letter imposing thos e re strictions is undated, it was received by the Social Securit y Administr ation in January 1994. The record also shows that Meeks has a hearin g deficit--his hearing for speech is moderately impaired and hi s speech discrimination is fair.
Meeks was also examined by a consulting physician, Dr. Ryan. Dr
. Ryan f ound that Meeks could occasionally lift fifty pounds, coul d 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 i n order to care for his wife who had cancer. He t estified that he walks two miles a day, drives a car and does his own groce ry shopping. He stated he has some pain from the hernia.

II. DISCUSSION
Meeks's disability insured status expired on December 31, 1992, s o the issue is whether he 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 re cord as a whole supports the conclusion that Meeks was no t 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 from the evidence and

### -4-

one rep resents 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 hi s treating physician's opinion. The medical repor ts of a treating physician are ordinarily entitled to greater weight than t he opinion of a consulting physician
. Ward v. Heckler , 786 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1986) (pe r curiam ). However, treating physicians opinions are not conclusive i n de termining disability and must be supported by medically acceptabl e clinical or diagnostic data. Id. He re, the ALJ properly discounted the lifting restrictions impose d by the tr eating physician. There was nothing in the medical records t o support such restrict ions. The letter imposing the restrictions contains on lya listing of Meeks's illnesses, with no explanation why th e restrictions are necessary. We agree that the restrictions are conclusory
. Based on the factual circumstances of this case, we believe the ALJ did no t err in rejecting the unsupported statement of Meeks's treating physician.
The ALJ also properly evaluated Meeks's complaints of pain an d conc luded that there was a sufficient basis on which to discount th e severityof his complaints and associated symptoms. This includes hi s failure to seek treatment for his hernia, failur e 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 require d surgeries, but he recovered from those surgeries. Nothing in the record shows that Meeks was totally disabled by the hernia or any of his illnesse s 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.