1

The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE

ARTHUR J. BOYLAN, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1504

___________

Gregory J. Rosenow, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 6, 1999

 Filed: May 12, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory J. Rosenow appeals from the district court&s1

 grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Social Security Commissioner, upholding the decision to deny

Rosenow&s application for disability insurance benefits. Rosenow had alleged he could

not work primarily because of back, neck, shoulder, leg, and groin pain, numbness in

his fingers, headaches, and depression. For reversal, he challenges the credibility
-2-

findings and residual functional capacity assessment made by the administrative law

judge (ALJ) after the original and supplemental hearings. Rosenow also argues the

Commissioner did not meet his burden of identifying a significant number of jobs

Rosenow could perform.

Having carefully reviewed the record, taking into consideration evidence in the

record that supports as well as detracts from the Commissioner’s final decision, we

conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the

Commissioner. See Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard

of review). “[I]t is the statutory duty of the ALJ, in the first instance, to assess the

credibility of the claimant,” Nelson v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir. 1992), and

we believe the ALJ’s findings were in conformity with Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d

1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). In addition, the ALJ properly concluded that, to the extent

Rosenow’s back pain, headaches, and depression were controlled by medication, those

impairments were not disabling, see Stout v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir.

1993); and even if the evidence would support a contrary conclusion, that does not

establish a basis for reversal, see Robinson, 956 F.2d at 838 (appellate court must

affirm if it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from evidence and one of

those positions represents agency’s findings). 

We also conclude that the record supports the ALJ’s assessment of Rosenow’s

residual functional capacity, that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational

expert at the supplemental hearing fairly encompassed Rosenow’s limitations, and that

the ALJ could therefore rely on the vocational expert’s testimony in concluding

Rosenow was capable of gainful employment. See Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675

(8th Cir. 1996) (vocational expert&s testimony based on properly phrased hypothetical

question constitutes substantial evidence); Davis v. Shalala, 31 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.

1994) (hypothetical question is sufficient if it sets forth impairments ALJ accepted as

true). 
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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