### The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the rep ort and recommendation of the Honorable Jerry Cavaneau, United State s Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-2102

___________ Patricia A. Lawrence, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of the Social Security * Administration, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 10, 1996 Filed: February 27, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Patricia Lawrence appeals from the district court's order affirming 1 the Commissioner's denial of her application for Supplemental Securit y Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). We affirm.

I.

At th e time Lawrence filed for benefits, she was thirty-one year s old. She has a twelfth grade education and employment experience as a cook, cashier, nurse's aide, janitor, press oper ator, and most recently as a sewing machine operator.

### -2- Lawrence 's applications for SSI and DIB were filed on September 8 , 1992. She claimed that on February 7, 1992, she sustained a back injury while working as a sewing machine operator and has been unable to wor k since the n. At a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) , Lawrence asserted that the injury to her back ca used "extreme pain" in her back and numbness in her extremities, resulting in her inability to sit or stand for periods longer than fifteen minutes at a time, in some loss of use of her hands, and in her decreased ability t o perform household tasks. She also claims that the back injury has affected her nerves, causing her to tremble, and that her knees "buckle up," limiting the distance she can walk.
The ALJ found that Lawrence suffered from severe back problems bu t that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her pas t relevant work. Specifically, the ALJ found that although Lawrence ha s slight restriction of movement in her low back, she has full use of th e upper extremities and would be able to perform awide range of light work, thus enab ling her to perform her past relevant work as a sewing machin e operator . The ALJ denied benefits, and the Appeals Council denie d Lawrence's request for review.

On appeal, Lawrence argues that the Commissioner's decision is no t supp orted by substantial evidence because the ALJ's credibilit y dete rminations do not have a sound basis and his residual functiona l capaci tydetermination and his conclusion that Lawrence can perform he r past relevant work are contradicted by medical evidence.

II.

Our review entails determining only whether the Commissioner' s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record viewed

### -3-

as a whole. See Shelton v. Chater , 87 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1996)
. "`Substantial evidenc e is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a rea sonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion.'" Id
. (quoting Oberst v. Shalala , 2 F.3d 249, 250 (8th Cir. 1993)).

Lawren ce complains of extreme pain in her back, loss of use of he r hands, and numbness i n her legs and feet. The medical evidence, however, is not consistent with Lawrence's testimony rela ting to her degree of pain and disability.

On Feb ruary 14, 1992, one week after Lawrence alleges that sh e sustai ned her injury, the examining physician diagnosed her with "uppe r back s train." The physician's notes indicate that no fracture , disloc ation, or prevertebral soft tissue swelling was noted, and X-ray s taken on that date were normal. When Lawrence was examined again o n February27, 1992, the physician again reviewed the X-rays and concluded that they were normal. His notes indicate that his examination revealed an "intact neurologic exam" and that Lawrence's sensory, motor, and deep tendon reflexes were intact and equal bilaterally.
Throughan examination on July 30, 1992, the physician determine d that Lawrence had a mild diffuse disc bulge but that everything else was norma l. A follow-up examination on August 6, 1992, revealed an intac t neurol ogic exam and negative straight leg raising, and the docto r recommended that Lawrence perform prescribed exercises.
On November 30, 1992, Dr. Joel Price examined Lawrence, and although he prescribed two pain medications, he also dete rmined that her complaints were "spurious or exa ggerated." Examinations on February 24 and March 3, 1993, again revealed only a small focal disc herniation, which did no t "appear t o efface the thecal sac, displace the nerve roots or produce a spinal stenosis."

### -4- On Augu st 2, 1993, Dr. Jon D. Collier determined that Lawrence ha d a thi rty-five percent total disability. In a September 10, 1993 , examination, however, Dr. Tom Miller found that although Lawrence suffered froma focal disc herniation, he found no clear root compression an d concluded that Lawrence was not a candidate for surgery. Dr. Miller found that there was modera te restriction of motion in Lawrence's back and that Law rence had some decreased sensation in her left foot and toes. Dr
. Miller 's opinion was that Lawrence had a permanent partial impairmen t rating of only ten percent, and the only restriction he placed upon he r activities was that she could not lift more than thirty-five pounds.

Lawren ce contends that she cannot sit or stand for longer tha n fifte en minutes at a time, cannot walk long distances, and cannot hol d things with her hands very long. Lawrence ackno wledges, however, that she can dre ss and bathe herself, and that she is able to do some housework , cooking, and shopping.

We co nclude that the medical evidence and the level of Lawrence' s daily activities contradict Lawrence's testimony regarding the severity of her pain and disability. The ALJ therefore properly discredited thos e complaints. See Clark v. Chater , 75 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1996) (ALJ ma y discredit complaints that are inconsistent with evidence, including medica l report s and daily activities). Likewise, the ALJ properly discredite d Lawrence's husband's testimony, finding that it was motivated by his desir e to see Lawrence obtain benefits. See Brown v. C hater , 87 F.3d 963, 965-66 (8th Cir. 1996) (ALJ could discredit testimony that was suspect).
Moreover, the record supports the ALJ's determination that Lawrence could perform light work. Light work "involves lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds" and may also require "a good deal of walking or standing." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (1996).

### -5-

Lawrence stated on her vocational report that at her most recent job she lifted only seat cover parts and the covers them selves and that at another sewing job she lifted no more than twenty pounds . In addition, Dr. Miller restricted Lawrence t o lifting no more than thirty-five pounds. Although Lawren ce indicated in the vocational report that those jobs require d freq uent bending and long periods of either sitting or standing, he r ass ertion that she is unable to do these things, as we have explaine d above, is not supported by the evidence.
Although we recognize that there is some evidence that Lawrence has in fact sustained a b ack injury and is in some degree of pain, we may not rever se the ALJ's determination simply because there is substantia l evidence supporting an opposite result. See Piepgras v. Chater , 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir. 1996). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determinatio n that Lawrence can do light work and that she is therefore able to perform her past relevant work. The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

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