1 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United St ates District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 06-1761

________________ Tammy R. Hallam, Appellant,

v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Appellee. * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. [UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: November 15, 2006 Filed: November 27, 2006

________________ Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM. Tammy R. Hallam appeals the district court's 1 order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Ms. Hallam filed fo r benefits on December 31, 2000, alleging disability due to depression, anxiety, and migraine headaches. She was later diagnosed with diabetes in July 2002. He r application was denied, but while appeals were pending a protective app lication for benefits was f iled on August 2, 2002. The-2- two applications were combined for a h earing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined (1) that Ms. Hallam's impairments of nonspecified depressive disorder, nonspecified anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, and complaints of migraines were severe but did not equal a listed impairment, (2) that the testimony of Ms. Hallam and her mother regarding Ms. Hallam's subjective complaints was not fully credible, (3) that Ms. Hallam had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform simple, repetitive work at no mo re than a regular pace and with only occasional contact with coworkers or the public, and (4) that even though she has no relevant work history, Ms . Hallam could be employed in jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a laundry attendant, kitchen helper, or landscape worker. The Appeal s Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Ms. Hallam appeals, argui ng that the ALJ improperly discounted her treating physician's opinion, improperly reject ed her subjective complaints, and erred in determining her RFC. After revi ewing the record, we affirm. See Dukes v. Barnhart , 436 F.3d 923, 926 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The ALJ did not improperly discount the medical opinion of Dr. Earl Mauricio, Ms. Hallam's treating physician, when ev aluating Ms. Hallam's impairments and abilities. Between February 2000 and Oct ober 2002, the medical records from Ms. Hallam's visits with Dr. Mauricio reflect th at she was psychiatrically stable, showing psychiatric improvement, maintaining her medication, and doing "pretty good." Ms. Hallam did not self-report any problems, and it was noted th at despite events such as her diabetes diagnosis, Ms. Hallam maintainedstability. During that same period, Dr. Mauricio filled out no less than five checklists , all showing a consistent decline in Ms. Hallam's abilities to work. Yet there was no corresponding decline noted in the medical records related to Ms. Hallam's mental state or abilities. An ALJ may properly "discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician . . . where a treating physician renders inc onsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions." Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal marks omitted). Dr. Mauricio's opinions as to Ms. Hallam's abilities and impairments were-3- inconsistent with and largely unsupporte d by medical records and other medical opinions. The ALJ's determination to di scount these unsupported and inconsistent opinions is supported by substantial eviden ce on the record as a whole, particularly since the record is clear th at the ALJ seriously consider ed and adopted other supported portions of Dr. Mauricio's medical opinion. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ's determination that the testimony of Ms. Hallam and her mother pertaining to Ms. Hallam's subjective complaints was not fully credible. Despite Ms. Hallam' s arguments to the contrary, the ALJ recognized the credibility factors set forth in Polaski v. Heckler and properly considered all of Ms. Hallam's daily activitie s, complaints of pain, medication records, aggravating factors, and functional restrictions. 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). If properly supported, credibility determinations are for the ALJ to make, and the ALJ's determination was ad equately explained and supported by the record. Lowe v. Apfel , 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir 2000); see also Baker v. Barnhart , 457 F.3d 882, 892 (8th Cir. 2006) (observations by medical personnel during evaluations that claimant was exaggerating complaints can be considered in evaluating claimant's subjective complaints); Choate v. Barnhart , 457 F.3d 865, 871 (8th Cir. 2006) (when making a credibility determination, it is proper for the ALJ to consider a claimant's relevant work history and absence of medical evidence to support subjective complaints); Tindell v. Barnhart , 444 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding an ALJ's credibility determination as properly made, and noting that the ALJ did not fully discredit all of the claimant's complain ts but included supported subjective limitations in the RFC assessment). The ALJ consid ered information regarding Ms. Hallam's impairments over a period of more than three years, which in this situation is sufficient longitudinal evidence to make a proper determination. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(D)(2) (2005). Finally, we find no flaw in the hypotheti cal question posed by the ALJ to the vocational expert. The ALJ limited the hypothetical question to the impairments he-4- accepted as supported by the record. Goff, 421 F.3d at 794. The ALJ did not completely disregard the opinions of Ms. Hallam's physicians or her subjective complaints, instead he properly incorporated those limitations that were consistent, credible, and supported by the record as a whole. Ms. Hallam contends the limitations set forth by Dr. Mauricio should have beenincluded in the question, but we have already determined that the ALJ's determination regarding Ms . Hallam's abilities was "not outside the zone of choice," and therefore "we cannot conclude that the hypothetical question was flawed" for failing to include these limitations. Hacker v. Barnhart , 459 F.3d 934, 939-40 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________