The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable Jerry Cavaneau, United States

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 Security

Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). We affirm.

I.

At the time Lawrence filed for benefits, she was thirty-one years

old. She has a twelfth grade education and employment experience as a

cook, cashier, nurse's aide, janitor, press operator, 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 work

since then. At a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ),

Lawrence asserted that the injury to her back caused "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 to 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 but

that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past

relevant work. Specifically, the ALJ found that although Lawrence has

slight restriction of movement in her low back, she has full use of the

upper extremities and would be able to perform a wide range of light work,

thus enabling her to perform her past relevant work as a sewing machine

operator. The ALJ denied benefits, and the Appeals Council denied

Lawrence's request for review. 

On appeal, Lawrence argues that the Commissioner's decision is not

supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ's credibility

determinations do not have a sound basis and his residual functional

capacity determination and his conclusion that Lawrence can perform her

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 evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough so that a

reasonable mind might find it adequate to support the conclusion.'" Id.

(quoting Oberst v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 249, 250 (8th Cir. 1993)). 

 

Lawrence complains of extreme pain in her back, loss of use of her

hands, and numbness in her legs and feet. The medical evidence, however,

is not consistent with Lawrence's testimony relating to her degree of pain

and disability. 

On February 14, 1992, one week after Lawrence alleges that she

sustained her injury, the examining physician diagnosed her with "upper

back strain." The physician's notes indicate that no fracture,

dislocation, or prevertebral soft tissue swelling was noted, and X-rays

taken on that date were normal. When Lawrence was examined again on

February 27, 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. 

Through an examination on July 30, 1992, the physician determined

that Lawrence had a mild diffuse disc bulge but that everything else was

normal. A follow-up examination on August 6, 1992, revealed an intact

neurologic exam and negative straight leg raising, and the doctor

recommended that Lawrence perform prescribed exercises. 

On November 30, 1992, Dr. Joel Price examined Lawrence, and although

he prescribed two pain medications, he also determined that her complaints

were "spurious or exaggerated." Examinations on February 24 and March 3,

1993, again revealed only a small focal disc herniation, which did not

"appear to efface the thecal sac, displace the nerve roots or produce a

spinal stenosis." 
-4-

On August 2, 1993, Dr. Jon D. Collier determined that Lawrence had

a thirty-five percent total disability. In a September 10, 1993,

examination, however, Dr. Tom Miller found that although Lawrence suffered

from a focal disc herniation, he found no clear root compression and

concluded that Lawrence was not a candidate for surgery. Dr. Miller found

that there was moderate restriction of motion in Lawrence's back and that

Lawrence had some decreased sensation in her left foot and toes. Dr.

Miller's opinion was that Lawrence had a permanent partial impairment

rating of only ten percent, and the only restriction he placed upon her

activities was that she could not lift more than thirty-five pounds. 

Lawrence contends that she cannot sit or stand for longer than

fifteen minutes at a time, cannot walk long distances, and cannot hold

things with her hands very long. Lawrence acknowledges, however, that she

can dress and bathe herself, and that she is able to do some housework,

cooking, and shopping. 

We conclude 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 those

complaints. See Clark v. Chater, 75 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1996) (ALJ may

discredit complaints that are inconsistent with evidence, including medical

reports and daily activities). Likewise, the ALJ properly discredited

Lawrence's husband's testimony, finding that it was motivated by his desire

to see Lawrence obtain benefits. See Brown v. Chater, 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 themselves and that at another

sewing job she lifted no more than twenty pounds. In addition, Dr. Miller

restricted Lawrence to lifting no more than thirty-five pounds. Although

Lawrence indicated in the vocational report that those jobs required

frequent bending and long periods of either sitting or standing, her

assertion that she is unable to do these things, as we have explained

above, is not supported by the evidence. 

Although we recognize that there is some evidence that Lawrence has

in fact sustained a back injury and is in some degree of pain, we may not

reverse the ALJ's determination simply because there is substantial

evidence supporting an opposite result. See Piepgras v. Chater, 76 F.3d

233, 236 (8th Cir. 1996). 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination 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.